Business and Corporation Law Business Negligence

Question: Describe about the Business and Corporation Law for Business Negligence. Answer: Scenario 1 Issue: As per the situation given in the case where Tom who is a friend of Steve needed a cargo truck which could hold a cargo of 10 tons however, the truck collapsed in the mid of delivery due to failure of suspension and Tom incurs a loss of $5000 every day. Law Law of Negligence misrepresentations: The above stated issue falls under the law of negligence misrepresentations. As the actions of misrepresentations also has the ability to give rise the action of tort (Feldthusen, 2015). Application: Negligence misrepresentations under the common law occur when the defendant carelessly makes a statement, which may have no reasonable basis to believe it as true. Such type of negligence misrepresentations allows the plaintiff to claim for damages where neither of the parties involved in the collateral contract nor does any fraud is found. A.C. 465 states that if the court of discovers that a representations has been negligently on which the plaintiff relied upon shall be considered as actionable in tort (Feldthusen, 2015). Conclusion: Under the current scenario, Steve negligently made representations to Tom to supply him with a truck having the capability of carrying 12 tons of cargo and Tom believed in the statements made by Tom. However, in the mid transits, the suspension of truck broke down and he incurred a financial loss. Hence, Steves actions represent Negligence misrepresentations and Tom can enforce the law of tort on Steve for acting negligently. Scenario 2: Issue: Pamela who used to water Steves garden during his absence once phoned Steve to lend her a car so that she can travel for holidays. Steve promises to lend her the car on phone, however,, at the time of delivery it was known that Steve had let out the car to someone else. Under the given situation, Steve has broken the contract, which was made orally to Pamela. Law: Law of Past Considerations: The above stated issue falls under the Law of Past Considerations. Considerations can be considered as important element for the formation of contract (McKendrick, 2014). A promise will be enforceable in the court of law only if it assisted by considerations. Application The applicability of the law under the current situations of Pamela and Steve states that a promise is given in return to the promise received. Usually past considerations is not considered as sufficient considerations however, a past service rendered on the request of the promisor with the implications that he or she will paid for, is considered as sufficient considerations in return to a subsequent promise made to pay for them (McKendrick, 2014). Conclusion: Steve who has promised Pamela to give a car has broken his promise by letting out the car to someone else. It must be noted that either an express term is enforceable in the court of law for promissory statement made written or oral which makes up the part of a contract. Hence, Pamela can bring a legal suit against Steve on the terms made by him, which will have their legal effects as Steve has broken his promise. Scenario 3 Issues: As per the given situation Danny who wanted to hire Toyota corolla from Steve on a rental fee of $40 per day including fuel charge arrived to collect the car on the given date. However, on arrival danny learned that the car vehichle was already destroyed in crash by another customer. Steves actions under this context fall under the Unilateral mistake as one of the party to the contract is mistaken to the subject matter which is contained in the contract. Law: Law of Unilateral Mistakes The above stated situation falls under the laws of Unilateral mistakes. The law states that where both the parties enter into an agreement falls under the mistake regarding the subject matter, which is based on the fact, which is significant to agreement and the agreement is void (Mason, 2014) Applicability The applicability law under the current situation of Danny and Steve states the erroneous opinion relating to the value of things forming a part of the subject matter of the agreement. Mistake is considered as the complex area under the contract law. It should be noted that under the given case of Danny and Steve where it is rare for the common law to offer the defendant with a remedy for unilateral mistake but equity on the other hand will intervene the common law more frequently. Conclusion Under the given scenario, Steves actions of unilateral mistakes are liable to be effected with the consequences as Danny has the authority to enforce for the specific performance of the contract and is enforceable in the court of law. Generally, unilateral mistake does not make the contract void unless the common law provides the Caveat Venditor let the seller be aware. Scenario 4 Issues Under the given situation the issue that has been identified that Steve who was looking to install a new air condition in his premises had negotiated with the Cool It Aircon Ltd which was owned by Trisha. After going through the latest draft containing all the specifications of the air conditions the sheet containing the contract of terms was mixed with other piles of paper and mistakenly gave his assent and sent it by fax. Law Doctrine of Estoppel The above state situations fall under the Doctrine of Estoppel where an individual is prevented from making any sort of assertions, which is contradictory in nature (Frazer, 2015). Thus, the law prohibits a person from by the way of preventing a person from asserting a specific fact in the court of law. Applicability The applicability of law under the given scenario of bars Steve from denying a certain fact in consequences of his previous negotiations made with Trisha. The doctrine of estoppels impedes Steve from denial or admission in relation to the final adjudication of the matter of fact in a court of law (Frazer, 2015). Conclusion: The actions of Steve are liable to be prosecuted in the court of law for his negligence because he acted negligently and he cannot deny the fact that he sent a fax containing his assent. On being prosecuted by Trisha for Steve denial of admission falls under the Doctrine of Issue Estoppel as Steve will not be able to argue before the court that he was negligent and it was an act of mistake. Reference List Feldthusen, B. (2015). Tilting the Balance of Power between the Courts and Government Through the Common Law of Negligence.Available at SSRN 2631586. Frazer, N. C. (2015). Reassessing the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel: The Implications of the Judicial Integrity Rationale.Va. L. Rev.,101, 1501. Mason, L. (2014). Restatement of the law on rectification: equitable relief for mistakes in contractual documents.International Company and Commercial Law Review. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK).