Case Study of Business Law

By Hector Weaver,2014-11-14 10:39
22 views 0
Case Study of Business Law



    Proving consequent damage


    1. Causation in fact;“But for rule. The defendant’s failure to take care must be the

    material cause of damage. A claimant must show that he or she would not have

    been injured but for the defendant’s act or failure to act.

    2. Intervening acts,

    3. The eggshell skull rule,


    When they perform their duties negligently, they are liable. Here, the negligence lies in: Failing to secure old lady to the gurney; Failing tohe secure the gurney to the emergency straps within the ambulance; and Failing to secure other emergency equipment to the interior, resulting in those items dislodging and striking old lady in the head, causing further injury to her. Not only are the medical employees liable, but the ambulance center might also be liable for failing to properly supervise and

    train their employees. There may also be liability if another driver failed to observe the right of way of an emergency vehicle and thereby caused the ambulance wreck in the first place.According to the eggshell skull rule, the law requires us to take the claimant as we find them, so if old lady condition rendered her more susceptible to injury due to age, fragility, her stroke or any other physical condition, this will not limit the liability of the defendant.


    The ambulance centre was liable for Rose's injury in car crash and delay of treatment.



    Duty of care



    In this case, the kid installed the batteries and began to play with it according to the packaging directions. Her mom agreed it because she noticed no problem with that, which also meant that there was defect in the doll. As the mom had realized, the damage of batteries of a doll was very little, and warn said it was not allowed to sleep with the doll. Therefore, Supertory Company did not perform the duty of care. It should pay for the damage.


    The defendant did not perform the duty of care enough, Jenny can claim the all the loss, include the Barbie doll and other property damage and medical cost, from the Supertoy Company.



    The veil of incorporation


    1, Juristic person, and body corporate, also commonly called a vehicle) has alegal name and has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do. The concept of a legal person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as is essential to laws affecting a corporation.Legal personality allows one or more natural persons to act as a single entity (a composite person) for legal purposes.

    2, A private company limited by shares, usually called a private limited company (Ltd.) (though this can theoretically also refer to a private company limited by guarantee), is a type of company incorporated under thelaws of England and Wales, Scotland, that of certain Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland. It hasshareholders with limited liability and its shares may not be offered to the general public, unlike those of apublic limited company (plc).

    3, Veil of incorporation: Once registration has been successfully completed a new legal person is created :its legal liabilities are entirely separate from those of its members.


    In the case, Mr. Murphy owned the private company. If he bought the insurance in the company's name, with British Assurance Company. There is no doubt that The insurance company would pay for the damage caused by the fire. However, he got the insurance in his own name. It is important to realize the difference between juristic person and nature person, which means Mr. Murphy signed his name as a nature

    person. The wood company was a separate entity. Mr. Murphy should not get any money from British Assurance Company.


    British Assurance Company should not pay any money to Mr. Murphy.



    Breach of statutory and the veil of incorporation


    1, civil liability for breach of statutory duty

    Any criminal or administrative legislation which does not expressly give rights to take action in tort for damages may be treated by the courts as being capable of doing so. If the claimant wants to sue the employee for breach of a duty then the claimant will have to prove the following:

    (a) The legislation gives the right to sue for damages.

    (b) The claimant is part of the class of persons protected by the statute.

    (c) The defendant is in breach of the duty.

    (d) Damage has resulted from the breach.

    2, Veil of incorporation:

    Once registration has been successfully completed a new legal person is created :its legal liabilities are entirely separate from those of its members.

    3, the company may be legally liable

    Breaches of contract. Generally a company is liable on its contracts in the same way as any other person.


    In the case the contract has require the defendant stating that he would not solicit any customer for his own benefits or purposes either when he was managing director or after he left Smart Motors. While he breaches of the contact and started a new company to supply spare parts for Smart Motors’ customer at a very undercutting price. So he has damage the claimant. The defendant has to responsible for the civil liability for breach of statutory duty. Although the defendant tries to use the veil of incorporation to protect the company, defendant has legal personality, and his contract

    is also functional for his company. And a company is liable on its contracts in the same way as any other person.


    The defendant has civil liability for breach of statutory duty, and the veil of incorporation did not work. The company is also liable on defendant’s contracts. So he can not personally liable for his company’s current business against Smart Motors.



    Agency by estoppel


    1 In certain circumstances a third party may presume that a person has the authority of an agent ,if the pricipals behaviour reasonably appears to give this impression, the

    third party may enforce a resulting contract against the principal. Provided there was nothing to alert the third party to the true facts,the principal is

    estopped(prevented)from denying that the relationship exists. The agent in such circumstances has apparent or ostensible authority .

    2 Apparent authority may exist in the following situations:

    (1)An agency relationship has ceased to exist but the principal has failed to give notice of this to third parties.

    (2)No agency relationship has ever existed ,but the principal allows a third party to believe the agent was acting on the principals behalf.

    (3)An agency relationship exists and the principal allows a third party to believe that the agents authority is greater than it is .

    3 Each partner acts as the agent of the others

    when transacting business on behalf of the firm, a party is treated as its agent . partners can act only within their legal authority and must carry out their duties with reasonable care and skill.


    In this case, Mr. Smith formed Top One Real Estate Company with another friend, Mr. Right, and both were members of the board of directors. So they create the partnership. Because Rule 3 we know that Mr Smith can be a agent of this company . and from the agency by estoppel .. No particular written formalities are generally required so despite the fact that he had never been formally appointed by the company as such, he

    has the right to make contract by representing this company. Therefore if The Company refused payment of design fees, claiming that there was never authority from the Company to permit Mr. Smith to sign any contract., that is not reasonable .


    This company should be liable for the payment of design fees because he is one agent of this company .

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email