Running Header: ASPECTS OF CONTRACT AND NEGLIGENCE

Aspects of Contract and Negligence

Executive Summary

The following paper shall be an examination of the case studies given. It shall endeavour to explain the outcomes of the actions presented in the case according to the laws and regulations set down by the Government and the past incidents which have resemblance or relevance to the case at hand to be evaluated. In giving explanation in regards to a particular decision or a claim for the court, previous cases of documented legal cases shall be presented in order to validate the opinion being expressed.

\\

Table of Contents

Scenario 34

Rareplants Ltd4

Duty5

Breach5

Damages6

(2) Case of Mother6

Duty6

Breach6

Damages7

(3) Children case7

Duty7

Breach7

Damage8

(B) Foresee-ability8

The Elderly Case & the Children Case8

Vicarious Liability9

Mother's Case9

Scenario 49

(A) Lucy's Claim & my liability9

Duty9

Breach10

Damage11

(B) Special Relationship between the Parties11

(C) Case Analysis 'Candler v Crane Christmas' & 'Hedley Byrne v Heller & Partners'12

(D) The Application of Tort Law13

Conclusion13

References15

Scenario 3

Rareplants Ltd

It is very important to consider the claim under tort law in which the liabilities of the Rareplants Ltd were included, and also any sort of claim that might affect the company under the obligations of the statutes. The considerations of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 and Occupier's Liability Act 1957 will be involved in this claim. There is a main difference that has been identified in these two acts. This difference is that the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 applies to lawful visitors and the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 applies to the duty of the occupier to unlawful visitors. A duty of statutory on the shoulders of the occupier has been placed to ensure proper care of the circumstances and premises for specific purposes according to section 2 of the Occupier's Liability Act 1957.

Clerk and Lindsell (2000) have made an important point that the word land should be used to describe the word premises. This is because demonstrations have been seen according to the case law to encompass the occupier's land. It is obvious that land is a determining factor, and it is also observed that the occupier is determined by using a control test. It has been studied in Armes v Bailey [1999] that the courts stated that the supermarket's manager ought not be determined or considered to be the roof occupiers placed over the supermarket because it is outside their area of accommodation. In another observance in Ribbie v Norrie [2000], it was studied that the court stated that the landlords who do not reside on the accommodations were still the occupiers of the accommodation because they possessed the authority to control the area of accommodation.

Ingram v Davison-Lungley [2000] demonstrate that the acceptance of claims under the Occupier's Liability Act 1957 in which the plaintiff is also responsible for his injury have been reduced by the court. For example, if the court finds that the appeal of a person is not sufficient enough to hold liability against the occupier because the appellant followed an unusual way of entering the water to swim in the pool. This is a case in which ...