Whether john is liable under tort. If yes, what are the payable damages.
1.Tort in Australia is dealt through the common law provisions and civil liabilities.
Duty of care is legal duty, which needs to be performed by an individual who can reasonably foresee that harm can be caused to another person(s). to examine whether there was a breach of duty, the court has to look into the standard of care that is taken in similar circumstance. The third, the court examines whether this breach has caused injury to another person. Here, in this case putting cautious signs is a precautionary measure that is taken in similar circumstance as a duty of care. Johnny did not do take any measures in order to warn his customers about the wet floor nor did he take any other precautionary measure to avoid a foreseeable injury that could’ve been caused because of the wet floor. As a result of which, Lily severely sprained her ankle.
In Harley v London Electric Board the appellant filed a case against the electric company for being negligent in carrying out their work on a public road due to which the claimant injured himself by falling into the pit dug by the defendant company. The defendant claimed that any ordinary person would have taken measure to avoid the hole that was so clearly visible. The judge ruled the case in the favor of the claimant making the defendant liable. The judgment stated that though even though the hole was prominent and it was a foreseeable situation the defendant should have taken precautionary measures keeping in mind that any person with disability would unknowingly fall into that pit. It was the duty of the defendant to take necessary precautionary steps, which he failed to do.
In conclusion, duty of care is a duty imposed on every person by the State. Failure to perform such duty will amount to negligence under common law and is punishable. Johnny failed to warn and or in taking any other precautionary measure so as to avoid any forseeable injury to his customers about the wet floor and hence, the court may impose a liability on Johnny to compensate Lily for her injuries.
Whether a contract exists between Lame Duck Restaurant and Li. If so, what will be the liability if Lame Duck Restaurant fails to perform their duty.
Australian contract law is governed by common laws.
First question that need to be answered is whether Lame Duck restaurant and Li have entered into a binding contract. Contract, under common law, is an agreement that is legally enforceable. For a contract, to be legally enforceable, there should be intent of the parties to create a legal relationship. There should be an agreement (offer and acceptance), and consideration between the parties capable of forming a contract. It is to be noted that when a commercial relationship is established between the parties, any agreement made will be presumed to be made with an intent to create a legal relationship. The main elements that need to be in place to form a contract are - offer, acceptance and consideration. There must be proper communication between the parties to agreement and there must be a consideration involved. The condition of offer, acceptance and consideration are fulfilled but between Summer and Li. Summer being a sales and marketing representative of Lame Duck Restaurant mistakenly accepts the booking, asking Abu from accounts to accept the deposit and finalize the invoice. Li calls, accepts the quoted price, pays the deposit and books the date for the wedding. Here, acceptance to offer is done and the consideration is made on behalf of the parties fullfiling all the requisites of a valid contract. There is a binding legal contract between Lame Duck Restaurant and Li. This comes under the concept of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a common law principle, which imposes liability on any person for the failure or performance of another person who was entrusted to perform such task. Examples of vicarious liability are; liability of contractor on failure of completion of job by their subcontractors; parents being liable for their children in performance of the acts which causes substantial damage; the most common example associated with vicarious liability is the liability of an employer on behalf of their employees. It is to be noted that so long as the employees are doing any act in the furtherance of their duty, the employer will be liable for such act. Vicarious liability is a liability for negligence of another person. It is a strict liability, meaning, that this liability occurs even without proof of fault. In this case, Summer made a mistake of accepting the booking at different rates but Lame Duck Restaurant will not be free of the contract that now binds them even though he did not know about such a booking took place. A similar situation occurred in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. where the changes in the reward policy were done at a later stage.
A mistake of accepting the booking was made by Summer when the booking came with an offer of their previous rates being payable. For this mistake, Lame Duck Restaurant will be liable. Contractual liability is different from tortious liability in terms of the parties involved. Contractual liability concerns only those people who are actually involved in a legal contract. In terms of tortious liability one party is fixed and there can be any other party and they are not involved in any contract whatsoever. In Contractual liability, the amount for which the party will be liable is equivalent to consideration mentioned in a contract. As there is no consideration involved in Vicarious Liability, the compensation paid cannot be calculated. There are certain rights and duties of parties to a contract. The law requires the parties to abide by those rights and duties. Duty of any service provider is to provide the service with care and skill or technical knowledge taking all the necessary steps for the purpose of which the contract was made. On the other hand, the duty of customer is to pay the consideration decided for the service provided. The law provides that on failure of performance of these duties the party who breaches the terms of contract will be held liable to pay compensation to the other party.
In conclusion, any employer who delegated a task to one of its employee will be liable for any damages caused by such an employee in the course of discharge of his duty. As Summer is the employee who manages sales of Lame Duck Restaurant she was acting within her course of employment and hence, Lame Duck Restaurant will be liable to fulfill the terms of contract entered into by Summer and Li and will compensate Li on failure to fulfill such terms.
The Civil Liabilities Act 2002 (NSW)
Law of negligence and limitation of liability Act 2008
Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562
 2 AC 605
(1837) 3 Bing.N.C.467
The civil Liabilities Act 2002 (NSW)
 2 D.L.R. 241
Household Fire & Accident Insurance Company (limited v Grant (1879)LR 4 Ex D 216 at 220
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
Sahin V National Australia Bank Ltd  VSCA 64
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.  Q.B. 256 (C.A.)
 Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562
  2 AC 605
 (1837) 3 Bing.N.C.467
 The civil Liabilities Act 2002 (NSW)
  2 D.L.R. 241
 Household Fire & Accident Insurance Company (limited v Grant (1879)LR 4 Ex D 216 at 220
 Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
 Sahin V National Australia Bank Ltd  VSCA 64
 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.  Q.B. 256 (C.A.)
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our 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....