Student Assignment Covering Form

Course/Unit Information
Course

Pearson (Edexcel) BTEC Level 5 Higher

National Diploma

Unit No.

Unit 5

Unit Name

Aspects of Contract and Negligence for

Business

Unit code

Y/601/0563

Batch

SEV10 - ACNB Parag Tikekar - 1507

Instructor Information
Name

Parag Tikekar

Phone
Skype
Email

ParagTikekar@yahoo.com

Assignment Information
Full/ Part
Assignment

Full

Date Assignment
Issued

11/07/2015

Date Assignment
Due

Student Information
(To be filled by the student prior submitting the assignment)
Name

Mohammed Naseeb Nazar

Westford Student
ID
Email
Date of
Submission
1

Naseebnasser2005@gmail.com

All the submissions to be done through LMS, no email or other

format will be accepted.
Student Assignment covering form is an integral part of the
assignment document and should be submitted along with all
submissions.

Student Declaration

I, Mohammed Naseeb Nazar hereby confirm that this assignment is my

own work and not copied or plagiarized. It has not previously been
submitted as part of any assessment for this qualification. All the
sources,

from

which

information

has

been

obtained

for

this

assignment, have been referenced as per Harvard Referencing format.

I further confirm that I have read and understood the Westford School
of Management rules and regulations about plagiarism and copying
and agree to be bound by them.

Students Signature

: Naseeb

Student Name

: Mohammed Naseeb Nazar

Date

: 22nd August 2015

General Guidance
Textbook Reading: Complete all assigned textbook and other
suggested reading. Supplemental Academic Reading (as detailed in the
Syllabus and will be progressively added)
Further Research and the use of the Harvard Referencing
System:

In addition to the above reading resources, you should find and

review additional relevant resources and supporting materials.
Additional reading and resources for your review are available in
e-front.
Be certain to correctly cite and reference all resources, using the
Harvard Referencing System.
You must do your own research and provide references of at least
three web portals, two journals/ white papers and two books for
two tasks, comprising one part assignment.

Statement of Authenticity and Submit All Work to E-front

Complete the title page and sign the statement of authenticity

All work must be submitted as an electronic document in Word to
the appropriate area in E-front. Work that is not submitted to E-

front by the prescribed deadline will be accepted ONLY under the

resubmit policy of Westford.
The report should be grammatically correct and word processed.
Pages should be numbered.
You will pass the full assignment task only if you achieve
minimum Pass criteria in each question.
While answering any assignment task, student must provide
evidence that learning outcomes of the subject have been met.
The answers should include a Table of Contents, followed by
writing each question and thereafter answering the questions in
the given sequence.
The answers wherever applicable should specifically relate to the
happenings in the case study and certain assumptions can be
made while answering questions, when trying to relate the
theoretical aspects with the actual case study happenings.
Use 12 Times New Roman script.

Learning Outcomes and Assessment Feedback

Name of the
Assessor

Learning
Outcomes

Grade
Descrip
tors

Evidenc
e (Page
No)

1.1 explain the importance of the

essential elements required for
the formation of a valid contract
1.2 discuss the impact of
different types of contract
1.3 analyse terms in contracts
with reference to their meaning
and effect

M1

12

M2

13

D1

13

2.1 apply the elements of

contract in given business
scenarios

M3

13

2.2 apply the law on terms in

different contracts

D3

13

Assessment Criteria
(AC)

LO 1
Understand the
essential
elements of a valid
contract in a
business context

LO 2
Be able to apply
the
elements of a
contract in
business situations

2.3 evaluate the effect of

different terms in given contracts

D1

14

Name of the
Assessor

Learning
Outcomes

Parag Tikekar

Grade
Descrip
tors

Evidenc
e (Page
No)

3.1 contrast liability in tort with

contractual liability

M2

14

3.2 explain the nature of liability

in negligence
3.3 explain how a business can
be vicariously liable

M3

15

D1

15

4.1 apply the elements of the

tort of negligence and defences
in different business situations
4.2 apply the elements of
vicarious liability in given
business situations.

D2

14

D3

15

Assessment Criteria
(AC)

LO 3
Understand
principles of
liability in
negligence in
business activities

LO 4
Be able to apply
principles of
liability in
negligence in
business
situations

In addition to the above PASS criteria, this assignment gives

you the opportunity to submit evidence in order to achieve the
following MERIT and DISTINCTION grades

Grade Descriptor

Indicative
characteristic/s

An effective
M1 Identify and
apply strategies to approach to study
and research has
find appropriate
been applied
solutions

Contextualisation

To achieve M1, you have

to show through your
work that an effective
approach to study and
research has been
applied. You will do
effective research to
explain the importance of

the essential elements

required for the formation
of a valid contract.
(Task 1.1)
M2 Select / design A range of sources
of information has
and apply
been used
appropriate
methods /
techniques

To achieve M2, you will

have to use a range of
information in your work.
You will have to identify
discuss the impact of
different types of
contract.
(Task 1.2)
To achieve M2, you have
to research and identify
various cases to aptly
contrast liability in tort
with contractual liability.
(Task 3.1)

M3 Present and
communicate
appropriate
findings

The appropriate
structure and
approach has been
used

To achieve M3 you have

to demonstrate through
your work that an
appropriate structure and
approach has been used
while doing your research.
The work you present will
apply the elements of
contract in given business
scenarios.
(Task 2.1)
To achieve M3, you have
to research and establish
the nature of liability in
negligence. Cover all
aspects of establishing a
negligence tort with real
cases (Task 3.2)

D1 Use critical
reflection to
evaluate own work
and justify valid
conclusions

Conclusions have
been arrived at
through synthesis of
ideas and have
been justified

To achieve D1 you will

have drawn conclusions
through synthesis of ideas
which have been justified.
You are expected to arrive

at a conclusion on how
terms differ in contracts
with reference to their
meaning and effect (Task
1.3)
To achieve D1, you have
to critically evaluate and
arrive at significant
conclusion on the effect of
different terms in given
contracts (Task 2.3)
To achieve D1, you have
to critically evaluate and
arrive at significant
conclusion on how a
business can be
vicariously liable with live
case examples. (Task 3.3)

D2 Take
responsibility for
managing and
organising
activities

D3 Demonstrate
convergent
/lateral / creative
thinking

Activities have been

managed

To achieve D2 you will

have demonstrated that
all the activities have
been managed. You will
have demonstrated an
effective approach to
understand the elements
of the tort of negligence
and build and present
appropriate defenses in
given business situations
(Task 4.1)

problems have been To achieve D3, you will

have demonstrated
solved
excellent analytical
thinking and application on
understanding the cases
given for analysis and
apply the law on terms in
different contracts
(Task 2.2)

To achieve D3, you have to

explore and research
extensively and effectively
apply the elements of
vicarious liability in given
business situations.
(Task 4.2)

Please note that for unit assignments assessors should use

these or other exemplar indicative characteristics for the
individual grade descriptors from Annex C of the HN
specification or any other relevant indicative characteristics
for the particular assignment. The indicative characteristic
should then be contextualised. Only one indicative
characteristic per grade descriptor, M1, M2, M3, D1, D2, D3 is
required.

ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE FOR BUSINESS

ASSIGNMENT
Assignment title

Law of contract and tort and the skill to apply

them in business situations

Purpose of this assignment:

The primary aim of this assignment is to provide learners with an
understanding of aspects of the law of contract and tort and the skill to
apply them, particularly in business situations.
Scenario
You are expected to conduct an extensive research with particular
emphasis on the formation and operation of business contracts. You need
to explore the content of these agreements and then develop skills
relating to the practical application of business contracts, including offer,
acceptance, intention, consideration and capacity. Please use relevant
case law examples. You also need to consider when liability in contract
arises, the nature of the obligations on both sides of the contract, and the
availability of remedies when a contract is not fulfilled in accordance with
its terms. Additionally, you are required to understand how the law of tort
differs from the law of contract and examine issues of liability in
8

negligence relating to business and how to avoid it.

(L.O. 1: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 M1, M2, D1)

You are expected to research and understand the essential
elements of a valid contract in a business context For two
assessment criteria in LO1, the following grade descriptors
provides more insignts.
To achieve M1, you have to show through your work that an effective
approach to study and research has been applied. You will do effective
research to explain the importance of the essential elements required for
the formation of a valid contract.
To achieve M2, you will have to use a range of information in your work.
You will have to identify discuss the impact of different types of contract.
To achieve D1 you will have drawn conclusions through synthesis of ideas which have been
justified. You are expected to arrive at a conclusion on how terms differ in contracts with
reference to their meaning and effect.
(L.O. 2: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and M3, D1, D3)
While researching and analyzing extensively so to be able to
apply the elements of a contract in business situations, you are
also expected to explore along the guidelines laid down in the
following grade descriptors.
To achieve M3 you have to demonstrate through your work that an
appropriate structure and approach has been used while doing your
research. The work you present will apply the elements of contract in
given business scenarios.
To achieve D3, you will have demonstrated excellent analytical thinking and application on
understanding the cases given for analysis and apply the law on terms in different contracts
To achieve D1, you have to critically evaluate and arrive at significant conclusion on the
9

effect of different terms in given contracts.

(L.O. 3: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and M2, M3, D1)

Using multiple case studies and legal examples you need to
Understand principles of Liability in negligence in business
activities. The following grading descriptors provides more
insights.
To achieve M2, you have to research and identify various cases to aptly contrast liability in
tort with contractual liability.
To achieve M3, you have to research and establish the nature of liability in negligence.
Cover all aspects of establishing a negligence tort with real cases.
To achieve D1, you have to critically evaluate and arrive at significant conclusion on how a
business can be vicariously liable with live case examples.
(L.O. 4: 4.1, 4.2, and D2, D3 )
Apart from understanding the intricacies you should be able to
apply principles of Liability in negligence in business situations
The grading descriptors provides more insights and you are
expected to meet them.
To achieve D2 you will have demonstrated that all the activities have been managed. You
will have demonstrated an effective approach to understand the elements of the tort of
negligence and build and present appropriate defenses in given business situations.
To achieve D3, you have to explore and research extensively and effectively apply the
elements of vicarious liability in given business situations.

10

Achievement Feedback Summary

Name of the
Assessor

Learning
Outcomes
LO 1

Parag Tikekar

Assessment Criteria (AC)

Criteria
Achieved
(Tick
Mark )

Assessor
Feedbac
k

Criteria
Achieved
(Tick
Mark )

Assesso
r
Feedbac
k

TASK 3
1.1 explain the importance of the
essential elements required for
the formation of a valid contract

Understand the
essential
elements of a valid
contractin a
business context

LO 2
Be able to apply
the
elements of a
contract in
business situations

Name of the
Assessor

Learning
Outcomes
11

1.2 discuss the impact of

different types of contract
1.3 analyse terms in contracts
with reference to their meaning
and effect

TASK 4
2.1 apply the elements of
contract in given business
scenarios
2.2 apply the law on terms in
different contracts
2.3 evaluate the effect of
different terms in given contracts

Parag Tikekar

Assessment Criteria (AC)

LO 3

TASK 3
3.1 contrast liability in tort with
contractual liability

Understand
principles of
liability in
negligence in
business activities

3.2 explain the nature of liability

in negligence
3.3 explain how a business can
be vicariously liable

LO 4

TASK 4

Be able to apply
principles of
liability in
negligence in
business situations

4.1 apply the elements of the tort

of negligence and defences in
different business situations
4.2 apply the elements of
vicarious liability in given
business situations.

Higher Grade Achievements (where applicable)

Grade Descriptor

M1: Identify and apply

strategies to find
appropriate solutions

M2: Select / design and

apply appropriate
methods / techniques

M3: Present and

communicate
appropriate findings
12

Achieved
?
(Tick )

Grade Descriptor

D1: Use critical

reflection to
evaluate own work
and justify valid
conclusions
D2: Take
responsibility for
managing and
organising
activities
D3: Demonstrate
convergent
/lateral / creative
thinking

Achieved
?
(Tick )

Overall Result/ Grade

13

Date

Note:
Faculties will provide detailed feedback/ comments for each
question answered by a student, in the answer sheets itself
(word document). In the Achievement Feedback Summary
Table above in the column Assessor Feedback, summary of
Basic Criteria of AC Met/ AC Not Met/ Redo/ Fail will be
mentioned.
All Grades/ Results provided by assessor in this document are
subject to validation from Internal Verifier (IV) and final
ratification from International Standard Verifier (ISV) from the
academic awarding body Pearson (Edexcel), and it is subject to
change if required.

Internal Verification
Assignment Brief
Assessors Decision

Internal Verification Report

Done By

Date

ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE FOR

BUSINESS
Assignment Task 1
Questions to be addressed in completing the Assignment:
(Figures in brackets after the question denote relation with the
assessment criteria. If you achieve all the assessment criteria
mentioned herein, you will have achieved a PASS grade).
[Grade Descriptors mentioned thereafter denote the evidence required
in your answers to achieve MERIT and DITINCTION Grades. To achieve
a MERIT, you must achieve all M1, M2, M3 grade descriptors mentioned
against the respective questions and to achieve a DISTINCTION, you
must achieve all D1, D2, D3 grade descriptors mentioned against the
respective questions].

LO 1: Understand the essential elements of a valid contract in

a business context.
14

LO 2: LO2 Be able to apply the elements of a contract in

business situations.
Case 1.1 - Payne v Cave (1789)
The defendant made the highest bid for the plaintiff's goods at an
auction sale, but he withdrew his bid before the fall of the auctioneer's
hammer. It was held that the defendant was not bound to purchase the
goods. His bid amounted to an offer which he was entitled to withdraw
at any time before the auctioneer signified acceptance by knocking
down the hammer.
1.1 Explain the importance of the essential elements required for the formation of a valid
contract. Discuss the elements in Case 1.1 given. (AC 1.1 : Explain the importance of
the essential elements required for the formation of a valid contract).
[Grade Descriptors M1]
Answer: Contracts are the foundation of a number of our daily activities. They offer the
means for individuals and business to market and otherwise transfer property, services, &
other rights.
The different elements discussed in the event given are the following:
(i) Offer: One of many parties promises to accomplish or avoid performing a specified
action in the future. In the given case, the defendant had made the best bid for the
plaintiff's proficient at an auction sale, but he withdrew his bid ahead of the fall of
auctioneers hammer.
He surely could achieve this since the offer had stated that the bid could possibly be
withdrawn any moment ahead of the auctioneer signified acceptance by knocking down
the hammer.
(ii) Consideration: Something in value was promised in trade for a price. The purchase
price should be something of value, definitely not money whereas consideration might be
some right, interest or benefit going to at least one party.
The plaintiff offered goods to the defendant inturn for cash (i.e. the best bid at an auction
sale)
(iii) Certainty: The contracting parties must have an obvious knowledge of the terms and
agreement that is included with the contract and also agree to just accept them.
The contract clearly stated that the defendant wasn't bound to buy the goods. He could
withdraw his amount any moment ahead of the auctioneer signified acceptance by
knocking down the hammer.
15

(iv) Lawful object: The thing of an agreement should be valid. Object has nothing related
to consideration. This means the reason or design of the contract.
The plaintiff was offering goods at an auction that your court hadn't regard being an
immoral or against public policy or was it forbidden by law.
(v) Legal capacity: Not absolutely all individuals are totally free to enter in to a valid
contract. Both plaintiff and defendant weren't mentally impairment, minors, bankrupts
and prisoners.
All the aforementioned mentioned elements are essential for the synthesis of a valid
contract. If anyone of these is absent the agreement doesn't becomes an agreement
Case 2.1 - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893)
An advert was placed for 'smoke balls' to prevent influenza. The advert
offered to pay 100 if anyone contracted influenza after using the ball.
The company deposited 1,000 with the Alliance Bank to show their
sincerity in the matter. The plaintiff bought one of the balls but
contracted influenza.
2.1 Apply the elements of contract in the given business scenario of Carlill v Carbolic
Smoke Ball Co (1893) (AC 2.1 : Apply the elements of contract in given business
scenarios). [Grade Descriptor M3]
Answer: Carbolic Smoke Ball Company published the next statement included in an
advertising in London newspaper 100 reward is likely to be paid by the Carbolic
Smoke Ball Company to any individual who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza
colds. The statement has all the weather of a conventional contract, they're mentioned
below:
(a) Offer: In the given case, an incentive will be made available from Carbolic Smoke
Ball Company i.e. 100 is likely to be paid to anybody who contracted influenza after
utilizing the ball.
(b) Acceptance: After having a supply in an agreement, there must be acceptance. Mrs.
Louisa Elizabeth Carlill (defendant) had accepted the offer from Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.
(plaintiff). She was a dedicated user of the item 3 times daily for 2 weeks after which
inturn she'd contracted the flu.
(c) Certainty: The terms of agreement had clearly stated that if anyone contracted
influenza after utilizing the ball, they'll be paid 100. This give rise to a valid contract
while the terms of agreement weren't vague or uncertain.
16

(d) Intention to Create Legal Relations: Contracts create legal obligation between the
parties. The terms are enforceable by law, so not enough active management and
temporary view of products requirements may find yourself costing everyone real money.
The court ruled in support of Mrs. Carlill and the organization had to reward her 100.
(e) Lawful Consideration: For an agreement to be legally valid there must be
consideration. It's consider being an exchange which will be produced by the parties. In
the given case, the inconvenience suffered by Mrs. Carlill in utilizing the smokeball as
directed which rewarded her 100 by Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Additionally, the Carbolic
Smoke Ball received good results in having people utilize the smoke ball.

Case 1.2 - Brogden v MRC (1877)

B supplied coal to MRC for many years without an agreement. MRC
sent a draft agreement to B who filled in the name of an arbitrator,
signed it and returned it to MRC's agent who put it in his desk. Coal
was ordered and supplied in accordance with the agreement but after
a dispute arose B said there was no binding agreement.
1.2 Discuss the impact of different types of contract. Discuss the given scenario of
Brogden v MRC (1877).(AC 1.2 : Discuss the impact of different types of contract).
[Grade Descriptor M2]
Answer: The impact of several types of contract are below:
(i) Bilateral Contract: A guarantee for an offer, wherein there's an obligation on the
section of both to accomplish or even to avoid carrying out a particular thing.
Brogden supplied coal to MRC as a swap for specific total be paid.
(ii) Informal Contract: An agreement that will require no special form or mode of
creation. Example ORAL contracts.
Brogden (plaintiffs) were the suppliers of coal to MRC (defendant). They'd been dealing
for a few years on an informal basis without any written contract.
(iii) Formal Contract: An agreement that will require a particular form or approach to
creation. Example is negotiable instrument like cheques.
Both parties later agreed so it will be wise to really have a formal contract written. The
defendant drew up a draft contract and sent it to the plaintiff. The plaintiff made some
minor amendments and filled in a few blanks and sent it back again to the defendant. The
defendant then simply filled the documents.
17

(iv) Void Contract: An agreement that fits all the essential elements to set up a contract.
A dispute arose and it had been questioned whether in reality the written agreement was
valid. However, the written contract was valid despite no communication of the
acceptance. The acceptance took place by performing the contract without the objection
regarding the terms.
(v) Voidable Contract: Following the dispute involving the plaintiff and defendant, the
contract you can forget existed.
.
1.3 Analyse terms in the contracts with reference to their meaning and effect. Research
and give suitable examples. ( NOTE: give real cases and not hypothetical ones ) (AC
1.3 : Analyse terms in contracts with reference to their meaning and effect).
[Grade Descriptor D1]
Answer: Terms in the contracts are statements that define the rights and obligations of
every party to the agreement. Quite simply, terms contain details agreed between parties
about what's allowed to be done, how they're allowed to be and under what conditions.
Terms might be conditions, warranties or implied etc.
Contracts contain various kinds of terms, some are far more important than others. The
more important terms are called Conditions whereas the less important terms are called
Warranties
Conditions are very important, without them one and other of the parties wouldn't
manage to enter right into a contract. Therefore, to create a condition incorrectly, or even
to breach/break a condition, is regarded as an extremely serious matter that the wronged
party will soon be eligible to deal with the contract as void, voidable or at the least
rescinded.
Where in actuality the term is really a warranty, the wronged party will simply able to get
monetary damages for almost any loss suffered and the contract will remain binding on
both parties.
An implied contract can be an agreement without having to be written or spoken about
but created by actions of the parties involved. This can be a contract anticipated to
possess been drawn. This means, there isn't any written record nor any actual verbal
agreement.

Bunge Corporation v Tradax [1981] 1 WLR 711

An agreement for the sale 5,000 a lot of soya beans required the buyers to offer the sellers
15 days notice of readiness of loading. This term was stated as a condition. The buyers
gave a smaller notice period and the sellers treated this as terminating the contract and
18

claimed damages. The price tag on soya beans had dropped by over $60 per ton. The first
hearing was decide by arbitration where it had been held that the sellers were entitled to
get rid of the contract and awarded $317.500 representing the reduction in value of the
soya beans. The buyers appealed to the High court who reversed this decision applying
the innominate term approach from Hong Kong Fir. The Court of Appeal reversed your
choice and the buyers appealed to the House of Lords.
Held: the word was stated as a condition and must be treated as such. The requirement for
certainty in commercial contracts and the truth that the innominate term approach had
caused much litigation meant that.

Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239

Liverpool city council owned a block of flats in that the defendant was a tenant. The most
popular areas of the flats, the lifts, stair cases, rubbish chutes etc, had fallen into disrepair.
A rent strike was implemented by lots of the tenants such as the defendant. The council
sought to evict the defendant for non payment of rent and she counter claimed for breach
of an obligation to repair. However, the tenancy agreement didn't mention any obligation
to repair. Actually the tenancy agreement only imposed obligations on the tenant without
any reference to the obligations of the landlord. The defendant asked the court to imply a
term that the council had an obligation to correct the most popular areas of the block of
flats.
Held:
The courts did imply a term. The implied term arose as a legal incident in contracts of a
precise type between landlord and tenant that the landlord was to take reasonable care to
steadfastly keep up the most popular parts. However, there is no breach with this duty.
Case 2.2 A- Schawel v Reade [1913] 2 IR 64
The defendant told the plaintiff, who required a horse for stud
purposes, that the animal was 'perfectly sound'. A few days later
the price was agreed and, three weeks later, the plaintiff bought the
horse.
Case 2.2 B - Bannerman v White (1861) CB(NS) 8
The buyer of hops asked whether sulphur had been used in their
cultivation. He added that if it had he would not even bother to ask
the price. The seller assured him that it had not. This assurance was
held to be a condition of the contract. It was of such importance
that, without it, the buyer would not have contracted.

19

2.2 Apply the law on terms in the given contracts in case 2.2 A and 2.2 B above. (AC
2.2 : Apply the law on terms in different contracts). [Grade Descriptor D3]
Answer: Case 2.2 A Schawel v Reade [1913]
Initial Agreement: Regarding this case, the situation of the contract was that the plaintiff
needed a horse for stud purpose so the pet should really be perfectly sound/healthy.
Thinking about the given case, the weather of the contract are the following:
(a) Offer: An audio horse being offered at a price.
(b) Acceptance: Plaintiff accepted the offer from the defendant and purchased the horse.
(c) Consideration: A healthier horse was promised in trade for money.
Mode of communication: The mode of communication used listed here is verbal while the
agreement had taken place orally without the form or written agreement.
The claimant had told the defendant he wanted the horse for stud purposes. He stated that
the horse should really be perfectly sound.
Mode of acceptance: The mode of acceptance done here was in the shape of express
contract where both parties had stated their terms and conditions orally.
As the claimant was examining the horse, the defendant told him the horse was sound and
if there's anything wrong he'd tell him and also told him no want to get a vet to test him
out. By hearing this, the claimant accepted to get the horse.
Reason behind dispute: As the plaintiff was going to examine the horse, the defendant
had told him that the horse was perfectly sound. He even told him that when there is
anything wrong, there wasn't any necessity to acquire a vet to test the horse out. In belief
of those statement, the plaintiff purchased the horse which proved to truly have a
hereditary eye disease and couldn't be utilized as a stud.
Decision of the judge: The House of Lords (i.e. the court) held that the statement You
will need not try to find anything, the horse is perfectly sound, if there is anything wrong
with the horse I'd tell you was a term of contract. The defendant was thus in breach of
contract.
Case 2.2 B Bannerman v White (1861) CB (NS) 8
Initial Agreement: Regarding this case, the situation of the contract was that the plaintiff
needed hops which were cultivated without Sulphur. If Sulphur was used then a plaintiff
wouldn't have the ability to utilize them in making beer.
20

Thinking about the given case, the weather of the contract are the following:
(a) Offer: Hops being offered at a price.
(b) Acceptance: Plaintiff accepted the offer as he thought Sulphur wasn't used.
(c) Consideration: Hops not treated with Sulphur was promised for a few money.
Mode of communication: The mode of communication used here's verbal because the
agreement had taken place orally without the type of written agreement.
The plaintiff asked owner for hops that haven't been treated with Sulphur. The defendant
had assured him no Sulphur have been used.
Mode of acceptance: The mode of acceptance done here was in the shape of express
contract where the parties had stated their terms and conditions orally.
Once the claimant had stated he wouldn't buy the hops if they've been treated with
Sulphur, the defendant assured him which they weren't. The claimant then accepted to
purchase them.
Reason for dispute: The plaintiff had only purchased the hops as the defendant had
assured him that the hops hadn't been treated with Sulphur but the truth is it have been
treated with Sulphur. The claimant didn't want hops treated with Sulphur while he
wouldn't have the ability to utilize them in making beer. Following the hops have been
delivered, white found that Sulphur have been found in the cultivation of a percentage of
the crops. Therefore, white rejected all of the hops.
Decision of the judge: The statement saying that the hops hadn't been treated with
Sulphur was a term of contract when compared to a representation because the plaintiff
had explained the significance of the definition of and relied on the statement. Therefore,
his action for breach of contract was successful.
Case 2.3 - Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410
Poussard was engaged to appear in an operetta from the start of its
London run for three months. The plaintiff fell ill and the producers
were forced to engage a substitute. A week later Poussard recovered
and offered to take her place, but the defendants refused to take her
back.
2.3 Evaluate the effect of different terms in the given contract scenario of Poussard v
Spiers (1876) (AC 2.3 : Evaluate the effect of different terms in given contracts).
[Grade Descriptor D1]
21

Answer:
Case 2.3 - Poussard v Spiers (1876) 1 QBD 410
Initial Agreement: The issue of the contract stated that Madame Poussard will sing and be
playing the lead role at Spiers opera for 11 weekly for approximately 3 months.
Taking into account the given case, the elements of contracts are the next:
Offer: Spiers had offered Poussard to sing as a lead role in trade for 11 weekly for
approximately 3 months. At the expiry of 3 months, Spiers can willingly replace Poussard
with someone else.
Acceptance: Poussard had accepted the offer and started initially to go through the
Criterion Theatre beginning 28th November.
Competent Parties: The members of the party were competent to enter into an agreement
as they'd the capacity to contract.
This contract may be classified as a bilateral contract, as both parties had promised to
complete a particular thing I.e. Poussard had the obligation to sing at Spiers opera for
approximately 3 months and Spiers had to cover Poussard 11 a week. Failing to get this
done may cause the breach of contract&rdquo ;.
The mode of communication was done by sending a letter of engagement that stated most
of the terms and conditions of the contract. This contract is really a proper contract since
it had been created legally by incorporating standardized conditions and requirements in
its body.
Both Spiers and Poussard were certainly of sound mind (i.e. both parties were clear of
mitigating factors like mental illness or intoxication) and the contract contained terms
which were lawful. Therefore it absolutely was an effective contract, that's legally
binding and enforceable.
The classification of those contract predicated on enforceability might be classified into
two:
(a) Valid contract: Due to the fact the contract between Spiers and Poussard had a lot of
the essential elements to start an agreement it is known as to be always a valid.
If their contract hadn't met most of the fundamental areas of an agreement then it
wouldn't be called a valid contract.
(b) Voidable contract: It's contract that have party which have the option of voiding or
enforcing the contract.
The contract had clearly stated that when 3 months, maybe it's voided predicated on
Speirs and pond will. Poussard may possibly also choose not to execute for Spiers.
22

Predicated on performance, this contract can classified as executory contract. It's an

agreement that's not fully performed by one or both parties. Poussard's inability to
rehearse and perform because of illness generated her never to manage to fully perform
her duty well.
Through illustration, Poussard's (actress) obligation to complete the opening nights a
theatrical production is just a condition&rdquo ;.Nevertheless the actress failure to
rehearse for music consequently of illness is an excellent exemplory instance of terms of
condition that's been breached.
Cause of dispute: Madame Poussard fell ill 5 days before he opening nights and was
struggling to perform the original four nights. This led her to be replaced by Miss Lewis.
Mr Poussard claimed for wrongful dismissal on his wife's behalf since Madame Poussard
was eventually in a position to return to work. Spiers & Pond claimed that Poussard had
to rehearse on her behalf behalf performance which she was struggling to accomplish
consequently of which they replaced her.
Judge Decision: The judge held that defendant's refusal was justified and we were
holding not accountable of any damages. The principal cause of the court's decision was
based on Poussard's illness since it absolutely was a substantial one. The defendant
couldn't start the opening night until she recovered. The obligation to execute from the
original night was a condition of the contract. Failure to keep out this term permitted the
defendant to reject Poussard's contract.

Assignment Task 2

LO 3: Understand principles of liability in negligence in

business activities.
LO 4: Be able to apply principles of liability in negligence in
business situations.

23

3.1 Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability. Research and give real life cases to
support both types. (AC 3.1 : Contrast liability in tort with contractual liability).
[Grade Descriptor M2]
Answer: A tort is really a legal term explaining a violation where one individual causes
harm, injury or damages to some other person. The violation might be a results of
intentional action, unintentional action or because of violation of statutes.
Whereas, a contractual liability is an obligation imposed on an entity by the terms of a
contract. It's an essential concept on the planet of risk management and insurance. It is
really a promise that could be enforced with a court.
Case I A v Essex County Council
The plaintiff's, a married couple, were potential adoptive parents. The defendant authority
was a relevant adoption agency. The defendant had recommended two children (a brother
and a sister) for adoption. The male kid had serious emotional and behavioral problem.
The plaintiff's had decided to adopt both children. However, the defendant hadn't
provided plaintiff's with relevant details about the male child. The male child had caused
lots of trouble to this extreme he had damaged their property, health and family life.
Liability in tort: The defendant hadn't informed the plaintiff concerning the emotional and
behavioral problem the male child was facing. The male child behavior was impossible to
regulate so it had damaged the plaintiff's home, their health and family life.
The defendant were well alert to the male child's difficulties and yet they hadn't chose to
see them (the plaintiff).
Essex county council negligence to see the plaintiff concerning the child's difficulty
triggered the losses suffered. In addition it resulted in the breach of the work while they
should've known the effects that may be due to the child's behavior.
Contractual liability: The defendant has denied so it owned the plaintiff a duty of care.
However, it absolutely was held that the person exercising a certain skill or profession do
owe a duty of care in its performance to the plaintiff who might foreseeably be injured if
its skill was exercised carelessly.
Moreover, there is sufficient proximity involving the adoptive parents and the folks
coping with adoption. Therefore, it absolutely was reasonable to impose a duty of care
since it absolutely was in people interest that people that have special skills were paid to
provide their skills to the public.
The failure to offer the claimants with all the current relevant information of that they
knew acted in breach of duty. Also, the defendant had owed the claimants a duty of care
24

to which they'd denied and were vicariously liable for the breaches established. This
really is also referred to as as contractual liability.
Case II Haley v London Electricity Board
Plaintiff, a blind man was walking along a roadway in a residential part of Woolwich
where there have been 258 registered blind people. On his solution to work, he tripped
over an obstacle placed by workers of London Electricity Board. The plaintiff fell and
was injured. The obstacle was a five feet long shovel that was resting throughout the
pavement. The shovel was placed to safeguard pedestrians from the trench and deflect
them to the road. However, the usage of shovel wasn't a satisfactory warning for a blind
individual who uses stick for usual precaution.
Liability in tort: The shovel have been positioned on the pavement by the employees of
London Electricity Board. The shovel gave sufficient warning of the ditch for normal
sighed person. The plaintiff was alone and had approached the pavement with reasonable
care, waving his stick before him to detect objects lying on the way.
Unfortunately, he missed the shovel causing him to fall under the dig. The plaintiff
tripped over and fell hitting his head. Consequently of him falling, he became deaf.
London Electricity Boards negligence to supply adequate warning for several pedestrians
triggered the breach of contract. The usage of an area pavements by blind person was
reasonably foreseeable and they must be given appropriate protection.
Contractual liability: The defendant had ignored its duty of care by giving adequate
warning for blind person. However, it absolutely was held that there have been 258
registered blind in Woolwich and their safety concerns were evidently ignored.
To be able to protect every pedestrians from the ditch in a pavement, these were supposed
to shield the ditch with a fence which they'd not. Instead they went off to lunch and just
placed a shovel to warn pedestrians.
The failure to guard the claimant with adequate warning despite realizing that there have
been 258 blind people surviving in Woolwich acted in breach of duty. The defendant were
therefore liable to fund damagers that they denied. However, appellant was entitled to
recuperate damages at common law for negligence.
4.1 Apply the elements of the tort of negligence and defences in different business
situations. Research the case of Bolton v Stone [1951] HL and Carroll v Fearon (1999)
CA and discuss tort of negligence and defenses (AC 4.1 : Apply the elements of the tort
of negligence and defences in different business situations). [Grade Descriptor
D2]
25

Answer: Negligence as a tort: Negligence means carelessness. In legal sense, this

means failure to exercise standards of care that the doer as an acceptable person needs to
have exercised in the situations. Generally speaking, there's a legal duty to be careful
when it had been practically foreseeable that failure to do this was probable to cause
harm/damages.
Defenses to negligence claims: To successfully defend against a negligence suit, the
defendant will attempt to negate among the aspects of the claimant reason behind action.
Quite simply, the defendant introduces evidence that she or he didn't owe a duty to the
plaintiff, exercised reasonable care, didn't cause the claimant damages and so on.
Case (A) - Bolton v Stone [1951] HL
Claimant lived alongside a cricket ground. While she was nearby the gate in the leading
of the home, she was struck on the pinnacle by way of a cricket ball. The ball that had hit
the claimant was among balls that had ever been hit at the lands over the last forty years.
The cricket ground was quite large for practical purposes. The field was surrounded by
way of a 12 foot high fence. Eyewitnesses testified that about 6 10 balls have been hit
onto claimants Side Street over a thirty year period. The claimant alleged common law
negligence and also alleged that the cricket ground had largely constituted to public
nuisance.
The weather of tort of negligence applicable in the given case scenario are:
(a) Duty of care: Which means the defendant must take reasonable measures to stop any
damages being caused to people.
The big event was reasonably foreseeable as few balls had flew far from the field. The
defendant must have built fence high enough to stop balls from flying out from the field.
(b) Breach of duty: What this means is if an individual who engages in activities that pose
an unreasonable risk towards others and their property that really results in harm,
breaches their duty of reasonable care.
The defendant, who was simply the master of cricket field was held liable for creating
public nuisance and common law negligence on the floor for lacking fence high enough
to stop balls from flying out from the field. The claimant was injured since the ball had
flew out from the cricket field and hit her head.
(c) Factual causation: For a defendant to be held liable, it must certanly be shown that
this acts or omissions were the explanation for losing or damage sustained.
If the fence were built high enough, the balls wouldn't have flew away from cricket field.
If the balls wouldn't have flew away from cricket field, then your plaintiff wouldn't have
now been struck in the pinnacle and there wouldn't be any injury caused.
26

(d) Consequent damage: The final element in tort of negligence is that the damage caused
to the claimant was the consequence of breach of duty. The harm could possibly be
physical harm, reputation harm as well mental harm.
Stone was struck in the pinnacle by a baseball that flew out from the cricket field.
Therefore there clearly was a real injury to the claimant. Predicated on medical bills, the
judge decided just how much could be the defendant liable to fund the damages caused.
The weather of tort of defense in the given scenario are:
(a) To be able to avoid the ball from flying out from the cricket field, high fences were
placed throughout the cricket field. This is a measure taken by defendant to be able to
avoid injury to people.
(b) Maybe it's considered being an inevitable accident since the ball had flew far from the
cricket field only 6 10 times in the last 30 years and it had been therefore not exactly
predictable for the defendant to learn it'd hit someone.
(c) The likelihood of harm was low, the defendant had taken all practical precautions in
the circumstances. The cricket ground had tried its best not to injure others and provide
useful service to the community.
Case (B) Carrol v Fearon
In May 1987, the defendant had acquired an applied Fort Cortina. The vehicle hadn't
passed is MOT test on 22nd May 1988 before front tires have been replaced. However,
they certainly were replaced by second-hand tires, not retread. A corner nearside tire was
worn out with a 25% - 30% of its life, although which was considered within legal limits.
On 9th July 1988, the defendant was driving it along a motorway when suddenly the tread
stripped of and Mr. fearson lost control of the car. The vehicle collided with the
claimant's car causing serious injuries to the Mr. Carrol and his family. Hence, the
claimant sued the defendant.
The weather of tort of negligence applicable in the given case scenario are:
(a) Duty of care: The claimant knew his car hadn't passed the MOT test as the car's tires
were damaged. For his car to pass, he'd replaced those tires with second-hand tires which
hadn't been remolded. Also, the trunk nearside tire was worn out to about 30 % of its life.
Hence the function was reasonable foreseeable that tires tread could completely strip off
and cause an incident which did happen and bring serious injury to the plaintiff and his
family.
(b) Breach of duty: The defendant, who was simply the master of Ford Cortina, was held
liable for causing accident. The tires were replaced with second-hand ones that weren't
remolded, due to that the tread had completely stripped off and caused accident. This
27

caused in breach of duty of reasonable care because the plaintiff and his family were
seriously injured.
(c) Factual causation: If the tires were replaced by new ones rather than used ones, the tread
of the tires wouldn't have stripped off completely. This would've prevented the accident
from causing and the plaintiff and his family wouldn't have already been injured.
Moreover, the plaintiff's car would've also avoided damages caused to it.
(d) Consequent damages: The plaintiff and his family suffered personal injury alongside
physical injury to his property (i.e. his car) which resulted in the breach of duty. The
judge decides just how much the defendant is liable to cover on the basis of the damages
incurred by the plaintiff.
The weather of tort of defense in the given case scenario are:
(a) Dunlop Limited, the manufacturers of the tire had supplied the tires to Mr. fearson.
The defendant wasn't the suppliers of tires hence he shouldn't be fully liable for the
damages caused to the plaintiff.
(b) The tire was purchased by defendant for their own personal purposes and not for
causing injury to anybody around him including himself.
(c) Once the defendant had bought the tires, the defect it'd were considered under legal
limits I.e. the tread of tire was worn out with a 25% - 30% of its life. The tire had also
passed its MOT test in May 1988, hence the defendant wasn't aware the tread would
come off the tire completely and result in accident.

Case 3.2 - Liebeck v McDonalds (1994) (the coffee cup case)

On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from
Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the
drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001
Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of
her grandson's 1989 Ford Probe, which did not have cup holders, and
her grandson Chris parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and
sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees
and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the
process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap.[9] Liebeck was
wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it
against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she
had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser
28

burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight
days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost
20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83
pounds (38 kg). Two years of medical treatment followed.
3.2 Explain the nature of liability in negligence as that could be observed in Case 3.2 Liebeck v McDonalds (1994). (AC 3.2 : Explain the nature of liability in negligence).
[Grade Descriptor M3]
Answer: The moment the case was triggered in legal counsel, Reed Morgan targeted
two claims:
: It is really a failure to exercise the care that a fairly prudent person would
exercise in like circumstances. To be able to be successful in a negligence claim, the
claimant must prove the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care, the defendant had
breached that duty and the defendant's breach of duty caused injury to the plaintiff.
Negligence

(a) Duty of Care: By selling coffee to Liebeck, a duty of care will be created involving the
plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant needs to take reasonable care
towards the claimant. Failing to take action will held them liable to cover compensation
for the claimant.
(b) Breach of Duty: McDonald was acting negligently whilst the coffee they certainly were
serving were above the temperature considered safe by their particular quality assurance
manager. Anything over 140 F was considered dangerous while their coffee were over
180 F. Therefore, there clearly was a breach of duty which caused the plaintiff serious
damages and harm.
(c) Damage: The claimant had suffered third degree buns on a tiny the main body. She
stayed at a medical facility only a little over weekly where she received skin grafting.
This incident had left her with significant fat loss, permanent disfigurement and disability
for a long time to come.
: It describes a producer or seller being held accountable for placing a
faulty product in the hands of the consumers. Generally speaking terms, what the law
states requires that the product meet the standard expectations of the consumer.
Regarding the initial claim, Morgan argued that McDonald's was grossly/wholly
negligent in serving coffee that have been of temperature (I.e. over 180 F) and
excessively dangerous.
Product Liability

Firstly, McDonald's had a notice on the label of coffee cups saying that the coffees being
served were extremely hot and dangerous. Secondly, their particular quality assurance
manager testified they knew anything over 140 F was dangerous while their coffees
were served over 180 F.
Thirdly, they'd claimed that their customers took their coffee's home and drank it but later
they eventually confessed they knew customers drank their coffee right once they bought
it. Hence, the customers were drinking coffee at dangerous temperature.
29

The 2nd claim stated that the coffee was defectively manufactured. This can be a product
liability arguments that argues that certain defect in the specific product is distinctive
from other products of the exact same type and that specific defect is the main reason of
the plaintiff injury. Also, the defect wasn't known by the plaintiff.
Here, the defect may be the temperature of the coffee that has been regarded as extremely
dangerous even by their particular quality assurance manager. The jury reached your
choice that coffee being served hotter than usual coffee helps it be defective. The extreme
temperature of the coffee managed to get undrinkable and thus the coffee was defectively
manufactured.
Liebeck's losses from the incident including medical bills, loss in works etc. were only a
little under $20,000 and she offered to stay with McDonald for that amount. McDonald
refused and suggested $800. This prompted her to locate a legal counsel. Her lawyer
desired to compromise for $300,000. The organization again refused, to that they visited
trial where in fact the jury awarded the claimant $160,000 in medical expenses and $2.7
million in punitive damages.

Case 3.3 - Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd

Honeywill and Stein Ltd, after conducting acoustic work in a cinema
owned by Denman Picture Houses, requested permission to have
photographs taken of the interior of the cinema.[3] On the attendance
of Larkin Brothers Ltd to take photographs, magnesium powder was
ignited in order to create a flash light, to better illuminate the cinema
interior. It was argued that such practice was common in
photographing the insides of buildings, despite creating intense heat
and being hazardous if ignited near fabrics.[3] The photographers were
found guilty of negligence in igniting the flash just four foot from a
cinema curtain, setting fire to it and causing damage of 261.4s.3d.[3]
However, Honeywill and Stein Ltd, under threat of litigation from the
cinema company chose to pay this balance in full. The action was
therefore for the recovery of this sum, under the pretense that
Honeywill and Stein Ltd could not be responsible for the tort of an
independent contractor
3.3 Explain how a business can be vicariously liable by taking the instances of events in
Case 3.3 - Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers Ltd. (AC 3.3 : Explain how a
business can be vicariously liable). [Grade Descriptor D1]
Answer: Vicarious liability describes a predicament where someone is held accountable
for the omissions of another person. Taking the exemplory case of a workplace, an
30

employer may be liable for the acts or omissions of its employees, provided it could be
shown they took invest the course of these employment.
Generally, businesses that hire independent contractors aren't liable for the acts or
omission of the independent contractors unless the job is inherently dangerous
activity&rdquo ;.
About the given case, magnesium powder was ignited to be able to develop a flash light,
to higher illuminate the cinema interior. This practice was common in photographing the
insides of buildings, despite creating intense heat and being hazardous if ignited near
fabrics.
The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming so it was liable for damage caused in the
cinema. The defendant being an unbiased contractor and also associated with dangerous
activity, wasn't accountable for the damages caused.
Only when the defendant wasn't associated with any dangerous activity, then they'd be
liable for the damages caused. This really is exactly why businesses retain independent
contractors to execute certain functions.
The Court of Appeal held that the taking photographs in this manner was an extrahazardous activity which is why Honeywill couldn't delegate responsibility to the
defendant, and therefore remained accountable to the owners of the cinema for the
damages caused.
Case 4.2 - Dee v. Marriott International, Inc., 1999 WL 975125

Plaintiff Suzanna Dee brought suit against her former employer,

Marriott International, Inc., and her former supervisor at the hotel in
which she worked, Steven Bess, for injuries she incurred after Bess
allegedly sexually assaulted and raped Dee at work. As a result of
injuries sustained in this assault, Dee was unable to return to work for
an extended period of time and was ultimately fired by Marriott. Dee
sued both Bess and Marriott for assault and battery, wrongful
discharge, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Dee also
made a claim against Marriott for the negligent hiring and retention of
Bess, and failure to supervise Bess.

4.2 Apply the elements of vicarious liability in given business situations of case 4.2 Dee v. Marriott International, Inc.. (AC 4.2 : Apply the elements of vicarious liability in
given business situations). [Grade Descriptor D3]
31

Answer: In the given case, the plaintiff could contain the defendant accountable for her
injuries and losses on the next grounds:

Failure of the defendant to supervise Bess.

Negligent hiring and retention of Bess.
Failure to fire Bess after learning of his questionable conduct.
Wrongful discharge.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The weather of negligence in the given case scenario are:

(a) Duty of care: The defendant must supervise their staff to be able to ensure none of their
staff undergo any type of distress/pain.
Since Suzanna Dee was a worker of Marriott International Inc. there's a connection of
proximity between both plaintiff and defendant. Which means defendant owes the
plaintiff a duty of care and should be responsible enough to be able to ensure she's safe
during her working hours.
(b) Breach of duty: In ability of the defendant to supervise their staff during working hours
which caused it to be feasible for Steven Bess to sexually assault and rape Dee (the
plaintiff) at work. The defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care and there clearly was a
breach with this duty because of negligent act by the defendant.
(c) Factual causation: If Steven Bess and Suzanna Dee were being monitored in their work
time then Steven Bess wouldn't have already been in a position to sexually assault and
rape Dee. The negligent act of the defendant were the reason for the damage sustained by
the plaintiff.
(d) Damage: The claimant was sexually assaulted and raped because which she'd injuries.
Consequently of injuries, she was unable to benefit a protracted time period and was
ultimately fired by the defendant.
In a variety of assaults and battery cases, the employer is vicariously liable for an
employee's tort committed in the course and scope of employment, and that the
employee's criminal acts under limited circumstances lies within the scope of employment.
However, if a worker commits an act including the utilization of force that will be
excessive and dangerous and totally without reason, the employer isn't responsible as
matter of law.
Thus in this instance, Marriott wasn't vicariously liable because Bess's attack was exactly
the type of forceful act that is excessive and so dangerous concerning be totally without responsibility or
reason and therefore his actions were away from length of his employment.

32

Reference:
Abnormaluse.com, 2015. The Stella Liebeck McDonalds Hot Coffee
Case FAQ | Abnormal Use. [online] Available at:
http://abnormaluse.com/2011/01/stella-liebeck-mcdonalds-hotcoffee.html [Accessed 7 Dec. 2015]
Australiancontractlaw.com, 2015. Australian Contract Law | Julie Clarke.
[online] Available at:
http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/cases/carlill.html
Dec. 2015]

[Accessed

E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Liverpool City Council v Irwin. [online]

Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Liverpool-City-Council-v-Irwin.php [Accessed 11
Dec. 2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Bolton v Stone. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Bolton-v-Stone.php [Accessed 14 Dec.
2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Brogden v Metropolitan Railway. [online]
Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Brogden-v-Metropolitan-Railway.php
[Accessed 8 Dec. 2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Haley v London Electricity Board. [online]
Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Haley-v-London-Electricity-Board.php
[Accessed 11 Dec. 2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Hutton v Warren. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Hutton-v-Warren.php [Accessed 9 Dec.
2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Poussard v Spiers. [online] Available at:
33

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Poussard-v-Spiers.php [Accessed 12
Dec. 2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Schawel v Reade. [online] Available at:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/cases/Schawel-v-Reade.php [Accessed 10
Dec. 2015]
E-lawresources.co.uk, 2015. Bunge Corporation v Tradax. [online]
Available at:
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Bunge-Corporation-v-Tradax.php [Accessed
23 Jan. 2016]
Irmi.com, 2015. Contractual Liability and the CGL Policy. [online]
Available at:
http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2002/stanovich05.aspx [Accessed
12 Dec. 2015].
James Education Center, 2015. Elements of Negligence | James
Education Center. [online] Available at:
Lawhandbook.org.au, 2015. The terms of a contract. [online] Available
at:
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch12s01s03.php [Accessed
9 Dec. 2015]
Lawnix.com, 2015. Stone v. Bolton Case Brief. [online] Available at:
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/stone-bolton.html [Accessed 13 Dec.
2015]
http://www.williamskastner.com/employers-may-face-vicarious-liabilityfor-dangerous-acts-of-independent-contractors/ [Accessed 17 Dec.
2015]
Wolf, Baldwin & Associates, P.C., 2015. Vicarious Liability of Employers
| Wolf, Baldwin & Associates, P.C. | Pottstown Pennsylvania. [online]
Available at:
http://www.wolfbaldwin.com/Commercial-Litigation-Articles/VicariousLiability-of-Employers.shtml [Accessed 15 Dec. 2015]
34

Assessment and Grading:

This assessment is based on achievements in learning outcomes 1, 2,
3 and 4. In order to achieve a Pass grade, all criteria identified in the
assignment tasks with reference to learning outcomes of the module
must be met. In order to get higher grades of Merit and Distinction, all
the relevant grade descriptors requirements mentioned above must be
met.
Note :
Due Date: As Mentioned above. The date of submission is final
and non-negotiable.
Fill in the necessary details in the cover page and grading
sheet. Do not delete anything.
The Answer file should be named as
Yourname_HND_Assignment_1and2_ACNB.

35