Law Case Study Questions Paper Example

Question A

The duty of care is the responsibility of an individual or organization to undertake every reasonable measure to ensure that actions about the individual or organization that could result in harming other individuals or property do not happen. Being a trained chef, Rupali owed a legal responsibility of ensuring that the meal he prepared for the group of CDU students and their friends did not have any omissions that foreseeably could cause harm to the group (Ariza-Montes, Arjona-Fuentes, Han & Law, 2017).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Secondly, ultimately there is a special relationship between the chef (Rupali) the students' group from the CDU and their friends as is seen that they agreed to try out Rupali's meal as prepared which makes Rupali liable for any harm that may arise caused by the conduct in which the meal is ready. Henceforth, Rupali has breached a duty of care in question for his clients -the CDU students- in that he prepared a meal that caused harm to some of the students trying his durian pie. More so, in taking upon himself to cook a feast for the students without supervision, Rupali initiated a relationship with the group and owed them a duty of care to act in a manner that another chef would in such a situation.

Additionally, in the same position, another chef would have foreseen the injury caused by the sharp thorns of the durian fruit and could have peeled them off as they should. Furthermore, the proximate cause of the injuries the guests sustained is as a result of Rupali's actions in preparing the meal. It is therefore evident that Rupali acted in a manner that exhibited negligence and recklessness which resulted to injuries caused by the durian pie, breaching the duty of care he owes to his clients.

Question B

Reasonable skill and care law indicate that in absence written terms and conditions clearly outlining that the individual actions may act in contrary to the expected results, an individual will owe a duty of care to his/her clients and shall work reasonably and with care. In this case, Johnny explains to the guests that it is Rupali's first time to prepare a meal in the kitchen without supervision.

The explanation serves as a notification that the chef may not deliver a quality meal as suppose Johnny with lots of experience would. However, the possession of specialized skills and competence follow that Rupali acted in negligence. (Cate, 2016) Follows that a professional individual is not negligent if he/she does his work with the same standard that a person of the same qualification would have done it. Therefore, it is not necessary for a professional to possess the highest skill experience but it is sufficient that the ordinary skills of a competent professional be used altogether in carrying out the work.

If an individual can show that he acted in harmony with the ordinary conduct of professionalism and competency relevant at the time when the design was carried out, he can escape liability. However, in the case study of Rupali, he acted with incompetence since the durian fruit that he used to make durian pie for his guest was supposed to be peeled off as usual. Therefore, Rupali is responsible for the injuries caused by the durian pie he prepared for his guests as he acted below competence of skills in the kitchen.

Under the common law of negligence, Rupali did not act in unity with the skills that put him in the place of a chef. Therefore, Rupali owed the same duty of care as would another chef of the same qualification for undertaking the same work. Henceforth, the inexperience of Rupali does not dissociate him from according a full duty of care and acting responsibly in ensuring his meals do not cause harm to his guests.

Question C

Vicarious liability refers to a legal concept that allocates responsibility to an individual having a higher constitutional power other than the one who caused the harm, but they both have an official relationship. Dekker (2015) indicates that an individual having a higher responsibility at a place of work cannot be vicariously responsible for an act of negligence done by another individual holding a lower response in the area of work when the individual actions in person. Rupali acted in a binding work contract of which Johnny, his superior, was actively involved in inviting the guests (Spindler, 2017).

More so, Johnny did not assess Rupali comprehensively to ascertain that he was fit to be in the kitchen without supervision. Additionally, the actions of Rupali reflect the kind of guidance he receives from Johnny and emulation of Johnny's ambitions. The essence that Johnny was not available in the kitchen to prevent the actions does not distance him from the liability of the conflict since Rupali acted within the constraints of their contract. Therefore, Rupali actions could cause Johnny to be held vicariously responsible.

Question D

A contract is an understanding between two or more parties in agreement to do certain things (Fried, 2015). A deal does not necessarily have to be in writing. However, the statute of frauds necessitates that some contracts are in writing. Four elements are critical in determining the existence of a deal. A contract exhibits offer in which one of the parties agreed to do or desist from taking on some action (Bayern, 2015). Lame duck restaurant offered to host Li's wedding on their premises. Secondly, there is the consideration in a contract in that to some degree there was an exchange of value to the specific seizing or promise of doing an action. Li paid a deposit for the services in advance of the wedding ceremony as required by lame duck restaurant.

Next on is acceptance in which the offer is acknowledged unambiguously through words, deeds, writing, and performances (Bayern, 2015). The approval of the contract between Li and lame duck restaurant happened when the restaurant accepted the payment and finalized an invoice and Li went on to invite her friends to the venue. For a contract to pass through the acceptance stage, it must reflect the terms of the offer. Lastly, the agreement must demonstrate a mutual understanding of the essential terms of the contract and that they came to "a meeting of the minds" concerning the offer.

Mutuality happens when payment is finalized, and Li calls to accept the quoted price. The contract holds since there is undeniable proof that the agreement fulfills all the four elements of a deal. Furthermore, (Marino & Juels 2016) provides that a contract is deemed unsubstantiated when the party is making the offering objects upon a reasonable time. In contrast, lame duck restaurant objects to the agreement only a day before the banquet.

Question E

A mistake in a contract establishment is an error in the significance of words, facts, and quotations which cause a misunderstanding of one or both parties to enter an agreement without a full comprehension of the outcomes or responsibilities of the contract. Mistakes involved in a contract setting include common mistakes, mutual mistakes, and unilateral mistakes. A common mistake is a mistake in which both parties involved in a contract have the same misguided belief if the facts and offers included in a deal. Mutual mistake follows that both parties in a contract misapprehend the same material reality. That a meeting of minds was held but the parties are mistaken, and they are at cross purposes.

Mistakes involved in the contract are unilateral mistakes which refer to a situation where only one party is mistaken regarding a quotation, quantity, term, definition or any other measurement (McLauchlan, 2011). In the case study, the mistake falls on the Lame Duck Restaurant as they accept a lower price for the hosting the wedding on their premises. The error happens when the sales and marketing representative changes the amount of its food on the website but fails to change the price on the menu placed on the tables leading to a misunderstanding between them and their client Li which is noted when the time has already lapsed. A mutual mistake is exhibited in the contract where the two parties had a misleading understanding of the price of services offered in the restaurant. The restaurant made a change of food prices on the website but did not change the table menu which Miss Li used to book for a wedding and Summer accepted the deal. It is evident that the Restaurant took the deal on wrong information and that Miss Li accepted the quotation for wedding fee which was wrongly calculated.

Question F

If Lame Duck Restaurant does not provide premises for Miss Li's wedding ceremony, the restaurant risks facing a lawsuit that would result in charges of a breached contract. (Jacobi & Weiss, 2013) Provides that Lame Duck Restaurant is obliged to make an above and beyond payment referred as punitive damages that would adequately compensate Miss Li for the losses incurred. The primary aim of the punitive damages is to punish lame duck restaurant for the wrongful acts committed against Miss Li by not providing premises for the wedding.

Another legal consequence that the restaurant would possibly face is compensatory damages. Since Miss Li had paid a deposit for the wedding preparations, Lame Duck Restaurant might be compelled by a court order to pay compensatory damages which would ensure that Miss Li receives the payment that gets her back in financial position which she was before breaching of contract (Anderson, 2015).

A more probable course that would follow Lame Duck Restaurant refusal to provide premises for the wedding is specific performance charges. Specific performance would see a court order that requires Lame Duck Restaurant to perform their duty as agreed in the contract. Specific performance would see the restaurant providing the premises for Miss Li wedding ceremony under the same quotation that they had quoted before realizing there was a problem.

References

Anderson, R. R. (2015). The Compensatory Disgorgement Alternative to Restatement Third's New Remedy for Breach of Contract. SMUL Rev., 68, 953.

Ariza-Montes, A., Arjona-Fuentes, J. M., Han, H., & Law, R. (2017). Employee responsibility and basic human values in the hospitality sector. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 62, 78-87.

Bayern, S. (2015). Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept. Cal. L. Rev., 103, 67.

Cate, O. T. (2016). Entrustment as assessment: recognizing the ability, the right, and the duty to act. Journal of graduate medical education, 8(2), 261-262.

Dekker, S. W. (2015). The danger of losing situation awareness. Cognition, Technology & Work, 17(2), 159-161.

Fried, C. (2015). Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA.

Jacobi, O., & Weiss, A. (2013). The effect of time on default remedies for breach of contract. International Review of Law and Economics, 35, 13-25.

Marino, B., & Juels, A. (2016, July). Setting standards for altering and undoing smart contracts. In International Symposium on Rules and Rule Markup Languages for the Semantic Web (pp. 151-166). Springer, Cham.

McLauchlan, D. (2011). The'Drastic'Remedy of Rectification for Unilateral Mistake.

Spindler, J. C. (2017). Vicarious Liability for Managerial Myopia. The Journal of Legal Studies, 46(1), 161-185.