Whether Beck has breached the duty of care or not?
Whether her conduct was negligent or not?
Whether there was any duty of care?
Civil Liability Act Australia, 2003
The car gifted to Beck was an old car, Toyota Camry. Beck was warned about the car and its condition before by her parents. She was negligent about the fact that the car is unfit for driving as it has been not driven since past 2 years and should be checked before given a drive on the road. She kept on acting negligent about the driving and ignoring the fact about the car not being well maintained and have been in stand since past 2 years.
Donoughe v. Stevenson, 1932, AC 562, According to the Civil Liability Act Australia 2003, section 9 of the civil liability Act explicitly indicated, it is the responsibility of the defendant to take the all possible risk which is absent in the present facts and circumstances of the case. It is the duty of the defendant to take precautionary measures against any risk or danger.
Breach of duty of care has been taken place through Beck and because of which she met with an accident and cause fracture in the ribs Mick. The compensation shall be provided to Mick
Therefore it can be concluded that, according to civil liability act 2003 as well as the principle of common law Mick has a strong case against Beck on the grounds of negligence and breach of contract. It is a clear case of breach of duty of care. The risk was foreseeable on the part of defendant as beck did not have the well maintained car and even after the warning Beck chose to drive. It is clear case of causation; the direct negligent act of the defendant had caused serious injuries to plaintiff.
Whether there was a contract between Andrew and Tiffany?
Corporation Act 2001
An agreement has two parts an offer and acceptance according to case of Sughes, there is no particular form to constitute any offer. An offer is a type of communication that amounts to promise to do or not to do something. Carllil v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., the court held that the test is one of the intent and did the party making the intend statement that can affirmative response would give rise to an agreement or simple result in further negotiation. A contract can be terminated prior to acceptance of the contract therefore in this matter acceptance was done, according to the factual circumstance the acceptance and making of an offer was conducted and it was proven as a valid contract.
As per the postal rule of contract law as created in the case of Adam v. Lindsell, 1818, as per this case law an offer is said to be accepted and a contract is formed the instance when the acceptance letter is put in the transition that is out of the hand of the acceptor, another case law dealing with the same issue Henthorn v. Fraser 1892, the postal rule specifies that a contract is formed when the letter of acceptance is communicated and send into transition irrespective to the fact as the letter was accepted by the party. There was a good consideration between the paries in exchange of promise made by Andrew. Therefore according to the case of Stilk v. Myrick 1809 2 Camp 317, there was a contractual obligation upon Andrew toward Tiffany.
Therefore it can be concluded that there is a contractual obligation upon Andrew as an offer is also a promise made in the present case, 7 days were given for acceptance of the offer.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Negligence Law Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....