Introduction to Business Law
Order Instructions:
It is a business law question. there is 3 questions, you must answer all of them.
SAMPLE ANSWER
Introduction to Business Law
Question One:
Would you consider a newspaper report which stated that Malcolm Somebody (his real name) had been charged with a sexual offence defamatory? Explain your answer.
If all the four elements that qualify a statement to be defamatory are proved to be true, I can consider the newspaper report that states that Malcolm had been charged with a sexual offense defamatory. Defamation is a term used to refer to a statement that hurts an individual’s reputation. A libel refers to a written defamation while slander refers to a spoken defamation. Although the defamation law may vary with states, there are some rules that are generally accepted. If a person holds they have been defamed, they must prove the existence of a statement that is published, false, unprivileged and injurious (Kenyon 2013). Published in this case refers to the statement having been made public either through print, speech, or even television and therefore the above statement qualifies because it was published in a newspaper.
If the above statement is false in that Malcolm was not charged with sexual offence, then it can be considered defamatory. Since defamation law aims to deal with the injuries to reputation, a statement is considered defamatory if it is injurious. As a fact, the statement of Malcolm being charged with sexual offence is injurious as it dents his reputation. The statement is also unprivileged since it has not been stated that it was mentioned by a witness in a court of law or by any other person or institution deemed to be “privileged” (Baker 2011). From the analysis of defamation law, the only element that is not clear from the above statement is whether the information is false. If it is false, the newspaper report would be defamatory, but if the information is true the report cannot be considered to be defamatory.
Question Two
Peter as the manager of the liability to ensure that the toilets have enough water supplies. Moreover he has the duty to act or liability to make sure that there is hygiene in the washrooms and in the whole nightclub. Conversely, Julia and Wayne have the right to be provided with the best services in the nightclub and this includes being provided with water in the toilet. When Peter cut off the water supplies to the toilet handbasins, he was liable for his actions because he was denying Julia and Wayne their rights as customers to have access to water in the toilets (Miller 2014). By cutting off the water, Peter was being selfish because he was more interested in boosting bar sales at the expense of the customers’ rights to be comfortable while in the Bees nightclub.
Being the owner of the nightclub, Keith has the right to maximize sales. Similarly, Peter had the right to ensure sales are maximized because they were serving customers. Conversely, Julia and Wayne did not have any right to drink the water from the toilet because water in the nightclub was being sold at the bar at the price of $10 per bottle.
Keith, as the nightclub owner, was liable for the fault in the air conditioning that made the temperature on the dance floor to reach 43o. As a result, both Julia and Wayne became overheated and therefore visited the toilets to get some water. Wayne and Julia did not have any right to be provided with free water for drinking from the toilet hand basins since the nightclub did not have such an arrangement. Julia had a right to be assisted by the floor manager because she was feeling sick.
When Julia stumbled on a bucket, Peter was liable for the injuries she sustained since he had placed the bucket near the bar after removing it from the women’s toilets. Furthermore, Keith was also liable for the Julia’s injuries caused by the fall because Peter had cut the water supply from the toilets due to the pressure he had received from Keith to maximize profits. Therefore, the thought of cutting off the water from the handbasins was driven by the urge to stop customers from drinking the water from the toilet handbasins where they were refilling their water bottles and glasses. This was also supposed to make customers buy drinking water from the bar. Eventually, this had contributed to the placing of the water bucket near the bar where Julia tripped. Julia can therefore sue Peter for negligence for placing the bucket in the wrong place, and Keith for putting pressure on Peter.
In essence, Keith is also liable for any harm caused by Peter in the course of his duty because he had employed him (Miller & Cross 2012). The fractured ankle that Julia was diagnosed in the hospital was caused by the fall in the nightclub after tripping on the bucket. Peter was therefore liable for that injury. Keith was also liable for the injury that Julia sustained from the fall because the club was so dark and crowded and therefore Julia could not see the bucket. In relation to the extreme dehydration that Julia was suffering from, Keith was responsible as the bar owner since the dehydration was as a result of the high temperatures due to the faulty air conditioning. Even though Wayne developed hepatitis that he contracted from the ice he took from the bucket, Peter and Keith cannot be held liable because it was Wayne’s mistake to take the ice from the bucket since that water was not fit for consumption. In this case, Peter and Keith could argue that they had not indicated anywhere that the water from the bucket was for drinking since they were selling drinking water.
Question Three
In tort law negligence refers to the harm caused due to carelessness as opposed to intentional harm (Statsky 2011). The real estate agent had placed an advertisement for a house that stated that the Waterview House that was on sale was a luxury home situated on the harbor and includes mooring for a large boat. When the Brights purchased the house, they were sad because they realized that the mooring license had already been transferred to a third party by the time they were speaking to the solicitor and the agent. First, they can file a claim against the agent because he had given them a confirmation that the house had a suitable mooring. Indeed, the agent demonstrated carelessness because he had the responsiblity to find out whether moorland had a valid license. Moreover, the Brights can also make a claim against their solicitor, Mr Potters, because he confirmed to them that the mooring had a valid license. Therefore, the solicitor was careless because he did not find out about whether mooring license was valid or not. Negligence by the solicitor contributed in misleading the Brights into buying the house because they were convinced that the license was valid.
The fact that the agent informed the Brights that the house had a suitable mooring for a large yacht, it clearly shows that the agent was careless in giving his statement. If he was not more careful and cautious he would have checked then validity of the mooring license. Actually, both the agent and the solicitor were affected by the negligence law because they failed to assess the rules of the mooring license (Statsky 2011). If they did this, they would have found out that the license rights expire and could be transferred if the mooring was not used for a period of more than three months. By the time that Brights spoke to the solicitor and the agent, the mooring had not been used for four months. This implies that the license rights for the Mooring had already expired and therefore the mooring license had already been transferred to a third party.
Brights can lay claim against the solicitors because he failed to exercise the duty of care because he was supposed to advise his client on whether the Mooring license was valid. As a person who understands law, the solicitor should have been at the forefront in verifying the rules related to the expiry of the license. This would have made him to know that the license was already transferred to a third party due to the fact that it had not been used for more than three months. The negligence for both the solicitor and the agent may have been caused by the lack of knowledge that the current owner of the mooring was sailing around the world and therefore had not used the mooring for a period exceeding three months as stated in the rules governing the mooring license. As such, the Brights only purchased the house after the confirmation that he received from both the solicitor and the agent and therefore have claims against both of them on the basis of negligence law.
Reference List
Baker, R 2011, Defamation Law and Social Attitudes: Ordinary Unreasonable People, Edward Elgar Publishing, Michigan.
Kenyon, A 2013, Defamation: Comparative Law and Practice, CRC Press, New York.
Miller, R 2014, Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law: Texts and Cases-Commercial Law for Accountants, Cengage Learning, New York.
Miller, R. & Cross, F 2012, Business Law, Alternate Edition: Text and Summarized Cases, Cengage Learning, New York.
Statsky, W 2011, Essentials of Torts, Cengage Learning, New Jersey.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
