Main objective of the assessment: the students can explain the nature and functions of business law generally, demonstrate an understanding of how legal rules and developments impact on that business organisations and can evaluate the impact of legal principles on the provision of goods and services.
Description:
Maybridge Decorations Limited
In January 2002, Paul established a business Maybridge Decorations Limited (MDL). He hired his nephew James a few months ago to work with him as a driver. Paul and his wife Jill are the two shareholders of the company with each of them holding 50% shares. The company has expanded its operations and now turning over £2 million annually.
In June 2020, while James had suffered a hangover from overindulging in alcohol over the weekend, he was involved in an accident whereby he knocked down Daisy who was crossing the road while using her mobile phone. Daisy suffered a broken leg and was hospitalised for six weeks and could not cwork as model. The accident and the fact that Daisy had written MDL demanding compensation has made the news and led Maybridge Gallery to cancel paying MDL for a job carried out under a contract for redecoration it had with UDL, on the basis that the staff of MDL are irresponsible. Maybridge Gallery has served MDL with a letter notifying it of its intention to cancel the contract with immediate effect and has refused to pay for the services rendered.
In its initial reply to Daisy’s letter, MDL claimed that it was not responsible for James accident. MDL further claimed that James must bear the responsibility for the accident and pointed to a clause in James contract which reads;
“MDL will not be responsible for death, personal injury, damage or loss due to any act or default of its employees or any other cause whatsoever.”
Considering the above scenario
1) Advice Maybridge Daisy on whether her claim should be properly brought against James or MDL against James should be the proper.
2) Advice Maybridge Decorations Limited on the purported cancellation of the existing contract by Maybridge Gallery and the failure to pay for services rendered.
Answer should inc;ude reference to and discussion of any potential claims that could be made by Daisy against MDL and with the validity of Maybridge Gallery’s cancellation of the contract with Maybridge Decorating Limited.
Instructions-
2000 words total not including references.
11 uk based easily accessed modern references with citations.
Times new roman
Font size 12
Question 1
Format for answer
Issue
Rule
Application
Conclusion
1-Issue
1st issue-
Negligence, driving of James- could be dangerous driving, duty of care- injury or loss is a breach of care whether or not it is her act was contributory negligence.
Whether or not it is right that her employees are going to pay when/ if they are vicarious liability whether the facts of vicarious laibilty apply here. If it was through the course of employment it would here. If it wasn’t vicarious liability will not apply. If it is not written then we don’t know.
Contributory negligence and liability
Another issue
Daisy could not work for six weeks- if she were to sure she should sue the company if the driver was in course of employment. Vicarious Liability. The company is more financially established.
Damages- Fault and liability
James- was he employed or self employed? If he was it could lead to loss of earnings
2- Rule
For the driver to be neglected would have a duty of care to Daisy as a road user. Nettleship V Weston. It might be contributory negligence. If she was on the phone it might be contributory negligence.
Although the company is not at fault. They can concur or pick up the liability of its employees and who have committed Torts while the course of employment.
3- Application/ Analysis
Considering the fact that drivers have a duty of care established to road users. Considering the rule of Contributory negligence is…….
It will be determined that daisy contributed to her own negligence.
4- Conclusion
Daisy can sue directly- sue the company because she will get more. Anything daisy gets will be by the way of conisation will reduced to the extent of her contributory negligence. She has contributed to injury- any way of the consequences that the court will give to her.
Question 2
Format
Issue
Rule
Application/ Analysis
Conclusion
Issue
Issue 1
Is there valid contract between parties.
Valid contract- what does this mean? Is it a breach of contract?-
Extension clause- CRA- consumers rights act 2015.
Contracts excluding liability for death and personal injury are void. – is it a valid reason on withholding payment for UDL?
Issue 2
Is the cancellation of the contact valid? What are the contracts and so?
Rule
Application/ Analysis
Conclusion