BUSINESS LAW

Business Law

Business Law

Scenario 1

Jenny spent two days in hospital and two weeks off work in order to recover from her injuries. Her watch is unfortunately beyond repair. In a letter to Remi, Jenny made very clear that she expected to be compensated for her loss and injuries. Remi argues that he has no liability for the accident because of the notice near the stage excluding any liability.

Many accident assertions result from civilians tripping or slipping either onto the pavement, within the route or even onto confidential premises. There are two primary areas of law which govern these models of accidents. The former is the Highways Act 1980, and the second is the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

An “occupier” of land or premises is a person or institute whoever is in enough composure of it. As a plain instance, a private corporation may possess land which is let to and accustomed via another corporation whoever operates car parkland on that land (Kidner 1987). Someone whoever has an mishap on that land is possible to locate that the proper defendants, in the occasion they suffer physical injury and hope to assert compensation, are the car parkland operators whether they have overall accountability for the maintenance and running of the land. If however the contract between the corporations qualifies that maintenance of the land is to be the owner's accountability, thereafter the host and perhaps even both host and occupier shall be liable.

The OLA provides that occupiers must take “such care as is in all the circumstances of the reasonable case, to perceive that the guest shall be reasonably safe in employing the premises for the functions for which he is invited or allowed via the occupier to be there.”

Remi has a responsibility as a bar owner to supply competent employees, ample material, and a correct scheme and ample supervision, and a protected scheme of work. Remi's obligation as an owner is a “non-delegable” obligation, which entails that he will not get away liability if he has delegated an obligation that has not been performed, In this case his obligation is highlighted vide the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Jenny however was using one of the services provided by Remi's Place, inside the wine bar and had not by any chance gone through the notice appearing near the stage. She tripped on the tequila boxes that were left on the stage by someone else and did not do that of her freewill, even though Remi's Place was not involved with her tripping. The law on this matter is moderately clear. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 provides that debt in negligence for physical injury or mortality can not legally be limited or excluded. In other words, such clues are fully meaningless. Though perhaps not pointless, at least from the perspective of the Remi's Place where the clues are found(Deborah 2007).

Jenny had to miss her work and could file for a settlement under the Loss of Congenial Employment act and get a compensation worth a few ...