Understanding the multiple areas of law is essential as the guideline on acceptable behavior or conduct across the business or social setting. Through laws, navigating emergent conflicts can prevail for successful outcomes. Reviewing the laws ensures that people follow the set protocols and seek remedies when breaches occur. Contract, product liability, and negligence laws are important when seeking legal redress. Several law elements influence decision-making and should be recognized as the foundation for reshaping the diverse areas of concern. Through the review of a contract, negligence, and product liability as it relates to John, insight can be generated into the remedies in the cases.
Scenario 1: John and Peter are keen sailors
The contractual elements that shape John and Peter’s case should shape decision-making and determination of the remedies. Focus on assessing the crucial facets of offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention. Arguably, the first part of the contract is the examination of the offer. Whittaker (2019) recognizes that the offer denotes the willingness to contract based on specific terms that ensure that it is binding once the expectations are accepted by the individual to whom it is addressed. It is crucial for the objective manifestation of the intent by the offeror to be bound by the evident offer when agreed upon by the party (Jan 2020). Thus, the offeror should be bound by the words or conduct to induce a reasonable third-party observer to accept or believe that the intention is bound to prevail. Hence, within the case, John offered £1,000 for the boat that the two parties should have examined. Peter examined the offer, the single person, verbally. Therefore, in this case, the offer is differentiated from the invitation to treat when neither party makes an offer but invites the other to execute the activity. Whether the statement is an offer or an invitation to treat centers on the intention made as evident from the willingness of John to sell at £1,000 and Peter getting the message.
Relating the case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball company can play an integral role in the case since John’s offer of £ 1,000 and Peter receiving the message is legally binding (Jan 2020). The willingness to sell is apparent with the two parties communicating openly. On the other hand, consideration is an important part of the contractual process that entails the promise of performance. Jan (2020) recognizes that consideration is the main element of a contract and is integral to ensuring that it is enforceable. For example, for John and Peter, the boat is the consideration that translates into consideration of the financial incentive in the contractual outcomes. Consideration should be a promise, performance, and property with a legal value that is apparent from the boat. Sometimes, a substitute for consideration can prevail, which is enforceable. Richard & Mollica (2022) emphasize that substitutes can be promissory estoppel or good faith. However, the boat’s financial value is within the assessment’s purview.
Acceptance is equally an important contractual element that shapes contractual dynamics. John and Peter should ensure that the unqualified expression of consent to the terms should prevail in examining the offer. Objective manifestation plays an integral part in the interactive process of the two parties. Most importantly, the offer should be accepted per the precise terms to ensure an agreement prevails. Nonetheless, in this case, John offers the boat at £1,000 while peter counteroffers at £950. The terms are unacceptable to John. Therefore, acceptance is an essential component that shapes contract termination among the parties.
Scenario 2: John, the cider maker
John should seek compensation based on UK product liability and safety parameters. The cause of action should be guided by the product or apples being defective since George used Sulphur in their growth. Accordingly, the action was a blatant disregard of the circular sent, which translates into seeking compensation, especially for the apples he is stuck with that are not viable for cider production. The assessment of the common law negligence action and the breach of contract should shape the case process. Central to the evaluation is showing that the product was defective, John suffered economic loss, and there is a causal link between the defects and the financial loss suffered (Jan 2020). Leveraging Consumer Protection Act Section 3, John should directly reveal that the apple is defective due to the use of unsafe Sulphur for public use. The assessment of safety standards below customer expectations should be the basis for decision-making. Emphasis on the Section should translate into assessing the factors that can be the basis for determining if the product does not meet the set quality expectations (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023). Within the product liability case is the determination of how the apples did not meet the purpose for which it was intended. Emphasis on revealing that the product is unsafe will be the standard for seeking legal redress. Therefore, the focal point of the case is to ensure that the warnings about the unsafe apple are communicated. When George was supplying the apples, he was aware that they had Sulphur, which would, in turn, affect their well-being. The standards raised in the apple description should translate into seeking compensation for the unused.
Increasing cases across the UK play an integral role in assessing product liability, such as Wilkes v DePuy, whose case was geared at the examination of defects in products (Richard & Mollica, 2022). Providing insight and guidance on the consumer protection act should point out the way forward for John. Focusing on ascertaining a defect in the product should play a direct role in the assessment of the product (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023). Identifying the destructive features that may lead to consumer injury should shape decision-making. The Sulphur is dangerous to the welfare of the consumers. Through the case, the revelation that the defective product required warnings and the transparent communication of the features that may have altered the behavior of the consumers should prevail.
Further, John should be vocal in showing that George was negligent in supplying the apples. Referring to the case Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks Limited, the defendant can be vocal in showing that negligence was a factor that led to the defective products (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023). Recognition of the value of exact communication on the underlying product liability within the purview of breach of duty of care should prevail. George owing a duty of care to John and subsequent consumers, should influence the compensation case. With the financial loss reasonably foreseeable for both parties, it will be prudent to examine all parties’ violations. Conformity to the case should influence seeking compensation since the apportionment of liability was based on the misconduct of the supplier. The actual contribution of the supplier to the defective product should be shown to have led to the entire financial liability (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023).
On the other hand, a breach of contract should be shown with the John bringing forward the claims against George. The breach of the express contractual term relating to the product is central to the case. Showing that the circulation should be viewed as a contract, George’s misconduct did not conform to the set obligations and should be the way forward. Assessment of the goods needing quality improvement, not fitting the particular purpose, and the description needs to meet the expectations should be the way forward. The case shows that the farmer’s product features are below the set expectations within the liability parameters.
Scenario 3: John Seaview’s case
The accident happened in a public park, debilitatingly impacting John’s welfare. Therefore, John must seek compensation for the personal injury, especially when the park belongs to the local government. Arguably Heiss (2019) emphasizes that if the public park is considered owned by the local government, it will be held liable for the injuries that happen. Heiss (2019) further emphasizes the Federal, State, and local government entities previously used to protect themselves against personal injury through Sovereign immunity claims. However, in 1948, the privilege was altered when Congress passed the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023). The FTCA will allow John to seek financial compensation due to the injuries in the public park.
Arguably, the FTCA sets the standards for John in seeking financial compensation for the economic loss and the personal injury that occurs. The majority of the States enable the general public to seek financial compensation, which will generate an enabling platform to ensure the liability is managed effectively (Grajzl & Murrell, 2023). Central to the suing process will be John’s efforts to prove that negligence by the government had occurred that led to the public park accident. Establishing that the government had behaved so that the level of care that its ordinary prudence would have been executed in a similar instance should prevail. Central to the assessment is the review of the park, the level of frost, and whether the government’s workers had been negligent in ensuring it had thawed fully overnight. Proving that some omissions of the duty of care should be within the scope of assessment. Reasonable care should be considered to ascertain the government did not meet the operational mandate. The existence of a legal duty, the defendant’s breach of that duty, John’s sufferance of injury, and proof that the government’s breach caused the injury should be within the scope of assessment.
Through the principles of FTCA, the provision of an enabling platform to determine the breach. The Donoghue v Stevenson case should play an integral role in assessing the negligence case (Kumar & Heidemann, 2022). Arguably, within the case are the basis for ascertaining precautions, the probability of imminent loss, and the degree of loss (Golding, 2020). The parameters of loss should be geared toward revealing the economic loss that emanates from the injuries. Colliding with Kevin translated into substantial physical effects, and the resultant injury should be correlated with the breach of the duty of care. Typically, the local government maintains public parks during the snowy period.
Consequently, it has the duty of care and did not operate viably, translating into John’s harm. Further, the government did not volunteer to protect the plaintiff from potential emergent harm despite being aware of the implications on the physical welfare (Kumar & Heidemann, 2022). Emphasis on the prima facie case should be within the purview of the presentation of the comprehensive facts. Bodily harm and property loss for Kevin should influence the seeking for compensation (Kumar & Heidemann, 2022). The cornerstone of the case is establishing insight into the visible and invisible injury requirements.
Emotional distress and physical harm should shape the reflective process in the courts. Maintaining the legal arguments should also be influenced by holding the government accountable. Accordingly, the local government is called upon to correctly ensure high-quality and safe equipment is available for park management. Regular execution of risk assessment of the park is the government’s obligation (Golding, 2020). Therefore, the execution of regular checks and maintenance should translate into a safe and secure avenue for the users. Equally, in adverse weather situations, the government must ensure that the parkways are accessible and safe. If dangerous, the government should close the parks for maintenance. In this case, John will present the various facets that shape the park’s current state.
However, the government can counter-argue the negligent case based on the facets of the act of God or nature. Accordingly, the act of God denotes the severe and unanticipated natural event which is not within the scope of human control (Golding, 2020). The government can show that the frost was unexpected and could not control the impact on the park users. In line with the argument is the act of nature as a defense. The negligent defense denotes revealing that the forces of nature were not within the human intervention, and it was too late for the local government to induce thawing (Kumar & Heidemann, 2022). The lack of control in the park’s management due to nature is an effective defense in the negligence case.
Conclusion
Acceptance, product liability, and negligence are relevant in the three cases. Examining the three provides the foundation for canceling the contract, seeking a refund for the apples, and compensation for injuries. Assessment of the tenets of liability, contract, and negligence should remedy the case.
References
Golding, G. (2020). The origins of terms implied by law in English and Australian employment contracts. Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal, 20(1), 163-191.
Grajzl, P., & Murrell, P. (2023). A macrohistory of legal evolution and coevolution: Property, procedure, and contract in early-modern English caselaw. International Review of Law and Economics, 73, 106113.
Heiss, H. (2019). Insurance contract law between business law and consumer protection. In General Reports of the XVIIIth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law/Rapports Généraux du XVIIIème Congrès de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé (pp. 335-353). Springer Netherlands.
Jan, H. (2020). The principle of good faith and fair dealing in English contract law. Правоведение, 64(3), 312-325.
Kumar, M., & Heidemann, M. (2022). Contract law in common law countries: A study in divergence. Liverpool Law Review, 43(2), 133-147.
Richards, C., & Mollica, V. (2022). English law and terminology. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG.
Whittaker, S. (2019). Unfair terms in commercial contracts and the two laws of competition: French and English law and English law contrasted. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(2), 404-434.
write