Vermeesch and Lindgren Business Law †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Vermeesch and Lindgren Business Law. Answer: Introduction: The issue here revolve around the determination of legal liabilities for the given parties in reference to the negligence tort taking into the consideration the given situational circumstances. For the negligence tort to be applicable, it is paramount that three main conditions are satisfied. To begin with, the defendant must owe a duty to care towards the plaintiff which arises from the underlying situation or relation. In case of existence of this duty, the second aspect is the breach of this by negligence or carelessness of the defendant. Finally, this carelessness and breach of duty should culminate in damage to the plaintiff.( Pendleton Vickery, 2005). The duty of care tends to apply if the given plaintiff can be considered a neighbor for the given defendant and the set of circumstances. In order to ascertain the same, it needs to be established if the plaintiff would be potentially impacted in an adverse manner by the underlying choice exhibited by the defendant in relation to going ahead or forfeiting a particular activity (Davenport Parker, 2014). It is requisite by common law that any party that engages in any action or inaction must extend requisite care towards the neighbors so as to avoid any damage to them by the negligent conduct. However, this duty is limited only to those dangers which can be reasonable foreseeable and hence require appropriate care as outlines in the Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562 at 580 case (Harvey, 2009) For fulfilling the duty to care, the defendant is expected to take all reasonable measures possible and expected so that the risk to plaintiff becomes minimal. The exact steps and the care requisite would be contingent on the underlying situation especially the underlying impact and chances of occurrence. Hence, the reasonable steps to be undertaken and care extended would depend on the actual circumstances taken into cognizance by the court (Latimer, 2016). The breach of duty must lead to plaintiff being damaged which has a wide meaning in the negligence tort as it reaches to emotional and mental stress as valid damages besides the more obvious financial losses and physical injury (Harvey, 2009). Only those damages are considered critical are negligence tort which are on account of breach of duty and any other damages would be ignored. Also, to ascertain if a link is there between the damage caused and breach of duty and it needs to be checked if the damage could not been prevented if the breach had not occurred. Any damage which would have taken place even in the absence of breach of duty would not lie within the ambit of tort negligence (Lindgren, 2011). It is necessary that the responsibility of wellbeing of the plaintiff not only lies on the defendant but also on the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff is expected to undertake all possible measures in order to protect himself/herself from any damage. The negligent behavior on account of the plaintiff could lead to contributory negligence in line with the discussion in Astley v Austrust Limited (2000) 197 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 6 case and could serve as a defense mechanism for defendant to reduce the underlying liability imposed (Harvey, 2009). Cyrus As the two friends i.e. Olivia and Ritz took the bikes from Cyrus, hence he has a duty to care towards the two and the same should be exhibited by extending proper bikes to them so that they can reach their destination safely. He provided two bikes to them but both of these did not have a front light and one had a missing tail light. He did not inform Olivia and Ritz about the same but asked them not to use these on freeway and limit the rides to only the cycleway. The two friends were in a high mood and hence did not follow his advice. In this process they also ignored the warning signs which hinted at limiting them to freeway but the two friends acted negligently. While driving the bike, Olivia starts talking to her boyfriend on phone and is met by a car accident at a particular turning. There is ample evidence to reflect on the negligent conduct of the two friends to establish contributory negligence. Further, in the given accident, it is unlikely that even if there were proper head lights, the accident could have been averted as neither of the parties was devoting their full attention to the driving process alone. Hence, Cyrus would not be held liable for the damages suffered due to accident. Huck Huck has the duty to care to drive responsibly in order to ensure that others users of the road would remain safe. In order to discharge this duty, it is expected that the driver must keep an eye on the road always especially while taking a turn and that too at the night time. However, Huck while making a turn took his eyes off and started searching for the mobile which led to the accident in which Olivia sustained damages. Had Huck been more vigilant, the accident could have been averted or atleast no negligence claims could have been made against Huck. Hence, Huck would have to pay damages to the injured parties but would succeed in reducing the same on account of contributory negligence by the plaintiff. Quinn She is an electrician and going to the customer but on account of getting stuck in this accident she reaches late as a result the customer suffered damages in the form of spoiled food. It is apparent that Quinn had a duty to care and was expected to reach on time to the customer but the breach was on account of unforeseeable circumstances due to which, negligence tort would not apply here and hence Quinn would not be held responsible for the damages. The negligence tort has been successfully established only for Huck in which case also the liabilities would become less due to contributory negligence of the plaintiff i.e. the two friends. The issue is to extend an advice to Cyrus about his contractual liabilities on the account of the offer made regarding the sale of the four John Deere mowers. Two parties would be considered to be in legal contractual relationship when there is lawful offer and also lawful acceptance is present. Offeror has extended an offer to offeree that needs to be accepted on the part of offeree without any counter offer. It is imperative that offeree must inform the offeror regarding the acceptance of the offer. The offeree can either use postal media or electronic media to communicate the acceptance. It is noteworthy that when postal media is acquired by the offeree then the acceptance is validated on the offer at the precise time when the letter is posted by the offeree (Adams v. Lindsell (1818) 106 ER 25 case) (Andrews, 2011). It is not necessary for the enforceability of the acceptance that it must be received by the offeror within a particular period. However, this condition is essential in case of electronic media. It means, an acceptance letter would only be considered as enforceable when the offeror has got the mail. Further, when acceptance has been already sent by offeree ,then the offeror cannot revoke the offer (Carter, 2012). Cyrus offers to sell the Deere mowers to offeree Rowan. Rowan has unconditionally accepted the offer. Rowan has replied back to Cyrus by confirming the offer. The confirmation letter has been sent by post to Cyrus, Cyrus informed Rowan regarding the revocation of initial offer after the confirmation letter had been sent on behalf of Rowan. It is apparent that Cyrus has offered to sell mowers to Rowan. He has also stated the consideration of $3450. Rowan has accepted the consideration amount and sent acceptance letter to Cyrus. The letter has been sent via post and this makes the acceptance enforceable on Cyrus. Hence, the parties have enacted a contract. Further, the act of Cyrus of revocation of offer cannot be considered valid because they already have formed a contract. It can be concluded from the above discussion that Rowan and Cyrus have enacted a contract Further, Cyrus is accountable to fulfil the contractual liabilities as highlighted in the offer. Moreover, if Cyrus does not fulfil the liabilities, then Rowan can sue or claim for the damages for not satisfying the liabilities. The critical issue is to determine whether Cyrus and James have entered into a legal relation or not and what remedies are available to Cyrus on the account of the revocation of promise by James. There are certain cases where the parties have not entered into a contractual relation but the rights of innocent party are defended. In such case, the provision of doctrine of promissory estoppel is applied. If the promisor has made a promise and same has been communicated to the promisee and the other party has conducted the activity by considering the intent of promisor that the promise would be completed, then in such cases the promise is known as conditional promise (McKendrick. 2003). Also, the promisor cannot revoke the promise and has the legal obligation to accomplish the promise. The Waltons Stores Ltd v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387case is the witness of this understanding . Additionally, if the promisor does not accomplish the action cited, then common law has extended the rights to promisee that he/she can sue promisor and recover the damages (Taylor and Taylor, 2015). Cyrus wishes to buy a coffee shop in Mount Victoria. James who has already extended a shop on lease in Mount Victoria has promised (orally) Cyrus that he would extend the shop on lease to him once the exiting lease in gets finished. He also sends a letter to Cyrus in order to confirm the representation (promise). Cyrus has bought the business and the necessary activities based on Jamess promise. It is apparent that Cyrus has believed that James will provide the shop to him and hence, he has accomplished the business by considering the promise. Further, the act of James of revocation of the promise would result in significant losses to Cyrus. In such scenario, doctrine of promissory estoppels would preserve the rights of innocent party. Therefore, James would have to go ahead with the lease to Cyrus or Cyrus can recover damages for losses sustained. Based on the above, it can be concluded that James and Cyrus are binding into legal relation irrespective of the fact that James has denied to complete the promise. Hence, James has to satiate the promise otherwise Cyrus can sue him or recover the damages. In cases where any charitable actions are involved, the underlying law would be contract law. Thus, for any act to be legally enforceable, there has to be an offer extended to which the offeree must provide acceptance. However, in this process there should not be presence of duress or any misrepresentation which could make the contract voidable (Carter, 2012). Besides, consideration also needs to be present but the same must be sufficient in the judgment of the parties entering the contract. The court cannot intervene in this regard as is apparent from the proceedings of the Chappell Co Ltd v Nestle Co Ltd [1960] AC 87 case (Andrews, 2011). Conclusion A monetary contribution was demanded by Mr. Fallacious and Cyrus voluntarily donated a sum of AUD 320,000. The ey consideration for Cyrus at the moment probably would have been the self satisfaction. However, later he fell in love with David and after six months of being part of the brotherhood group decided that he wanted to settle down with David and demanded the money from Mr. Fallacious who refused to return the same. There is no evidence of any pressure or undue influence being used and it is quite realistic that in the mental state Cyrus was in, he decided to donate the money. Further, he never asked for the money after giving it and this was asked only after he decided to settle with David. Thus, it may be concluded that the contract with Mr. Fallacious was enforceable and hence Cyrus cannot demand the money donated back. References Andrews, Neil, (2011). Contract Law (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, J. (2012). Contract Act in Australia (3rd ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications Davenport, S. Parker, D. (2014). Business and Law in Australia (2nd ed.). Sydney:LexisNexis Publications. Gibson, A. Fraser, D. (2014). Business Law (8th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Publications. Harvey, C. (2009). Foundations of Australian law (2nd ed.). Prahran, Vic.: Tilde University Press. Latimer, P. (2016). Australian Business Law CC (1st ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Study Guide. Lindgren, KE. (2011).Vermeesch and Lindgren's Business Law of Australia (12th ed.). Sydney: LexisNexis Publications. McKendrick, E. (2003). Contract Law(5th ed.). Basingstoke:Palgrave Pendleton, W. Vickery, N. (2005). Australian business law: principles and applications (5th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Publications. Taylor, R. Taylor, D. (2015). Contract Law (5th ed.). London: Oxford University Press.