Summative Assessment of the Law of Obligation.
Part A
Question 1
The problem question here focuses on the rules of offer and acceptance of postal communication. An offer is an expression of willingness to contract on specific terms made with intention while acceptance is the unequivocal indication by an offeror to an offeree that he is willing to commit himself to a contract on the terms of the offerors offer. The legal issue raised here is when was a contract made between Eugenia and Carla under the postal rule for it to be enforceable. Also, when acceptance was made. For a contract to be made there has to be an offer and acceptance, in this case, Eugenia made the offer the question now is when did acceptance take place? Acceptance
…show more content…
And this because the law of negligence functions to maintain civil peace by providing an avenue of recourse for interpersonal wrong. Therefore, the reasoning in most duty of care cases is that based on the policy of interpersonal justice is that wrongs must be remedied but only when it is fair and reasonable. For example, in Hill v Chef constable of west Yorkshire, a woman told the police that she would most likely be killed by a ripper but the police failed to protect her and she died the court held that the police did not owe her any duty of care to prevent crime and could not protect every on west Yorkshire. This meant that there was no sufficient proximity between police and members of the society. But in reeves v commissioner of the met police, it was held that the police owe a duty to prisoners under their care and they could be held liable for a prisoner who committed suicide. This means that although it is reasonable that police do not owe a duty to all members of the public, it does not mean police did not owe a duty to prisoners under their care, therefore, a duty can only be owed where it is reasonable and fair foreseeable and when there is sufficient proximity between the
The Mailbox Rule is an area of Utah state law that declares the contract to be effective once the person accepting terms of said contract delivers it to a mailbox. The buyers stated in Addendum No. 2 that if they had not heard back from the seller by 12 a.m. that day, they would consider their counteroffer accepted. The seller was aware of the Mailbox Rule and delivered the accepted contract to a mailbox at 10:15 p.m.. The seller then experienced a phenomenon known as seller’s remorse, and left a voice message for Jon and Marsha at 12:30 a.m., thirty minutes past the proposed
The appeal was heard in The NSW Supreme Court, Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed the issue of “blameless accidents” therefore providing new evidence, with the view that the preceding judge made an error recognising the content and scope of duty of care. He also noted the breach of duty of care and causation .
This case is about an experienced city postal carrier who has recently filled a position at a small town post office and has difficulty adjusting to a different way of life. The central characters include: Larry (the postmaster of Foster Creek), Jim (a senior carrier) and George (a senior carrier). The Foster Creek Post Office exists in a small town and the typical way of life is carried through at the post office. Harry has arrived at Foster from a fast-paced big city post office. Upon his arrival Harry is introduced to his new co-workers where he gives a shy hello and immediately begins his regular duties. Harry expresses no interest in becoming socially involved with Foster Creek and becomes further alienated from his co-workers. His remarkable efficiency and desire to complete his required work as well as any remaining incomplete work causes resentment towards his presence by the senior carriers. Larry is currently faced with the task of placing Harry with enough work to keep him occupied while maintaining harmony among the rest of the employees. His first suggestion is to lengthen Harry’s route, however the senior carriers disagree with Larry’s proposition.
Firstly, with duty to act cases, it is often not clear exactly what D must do, or how little, before the duty will arise. The Ruffell case shows just how little you have to do in order for a duty to arise. Another issue is that it is very difficult to know exactly when the defendants had in fact undertaken responsibility to care for the victim (Ds had a very minimal interaction with V); the facts reveal that the defendants were of low intelligence which makes it unlikely that they would ever be capable providing the necessary care V required. The conviction of the defendant’s advocates that the courts adopt a strict stance when faced with claims that the accused had done what he believed to be sufficient to fulfil the duty. There is a lack of case law surrounding what family relations trigger a duty to act, this leads to uncertainty and inconsistency in cases when looking at the facts of the case . This is significant because prior to this case there was no case law that established a duty to act between siblings and without familial duties to act the duties to act based on an assumption of care might not have held up on its own as D’s attempts to care for V were so miniscule. Lastly There was also dispute on whether the D’s in this case believed that they had sufficiently fulfilled their duty or that what they were doing was sufficient because
Duty of care is legal obligation to ensure the well-being of a service user, safeguard service users from harm while they are in your care.
In past cases a decision on whether a duty of care was present in a
The authority of Kent v Griffiths which concerned the London Ambulance Service’s had failed to promptly respond to a call which resulted in the patient suffering. It was argued by the ambulance services that they owed no duty of care on the authority of Capital and Counties . However, it was held that the nature of the ambulance service differed in comparison to police/fire brigade services, therefore NHS hospitals had a clear duty of care towards individual patients equally. In accordance to this case, a duty of care was owed to all casualties including Victor based on the nature of their
As a retired United States Postal employee, I can say from experience that becoming a postal employee is a life changing and rewarding experience. It’s conveys a sense of pride and accomplishment at the end of the workday. Furthermore, it can be an outstanding opportunity for someone without a degree or with limited formal education. Working for the Postal Service has the potential to improve a person’s quality of life with exceedingly competitive compensation and benefits. I began working for the Postal Service as a temporary employee, worked my way up through the ranks, and retired as a manager.
The City Couriers case study will be examined in regards to the company’s overall performance. The internal and external environments of City Couriers will be analysed in regards to the key performance requirements and key success factors. Issues with performance measurement, feedback, development and remuneration will be identified. Furthermore, the issues relating to validity, reliability, fairness and cost-effectiveness in the management of both performance and remuneration will be explored. This assessment aims to highlight the current situation and areas of improvement at City Couriers.
“To what extent is the decision in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 still important to the duty of care in the law of negligence?” Donoghue v Stevenson saw the establishment of the neighbour principle by Lord Atkin which states that individuals “must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour”. To evaluate whether this principle is still useful in courts in the 21st Century, one would have to look at the modern day cases after the evolution and decide whether the initial idea is still being used or not. In this essay I will analyse the immediate change caused by Donoghue v Stevenson and whether this still affects judicial decisions in the modern day. Donoghue v Stevenson was a case brought to the House of Lords in 1932 regarding the duty of care that was essential from a manufacturer to a consumer.
The English contract Offer and Acceptance General principles There are three basic essentials to the creation of a contract which will be recognised and enforced by the courts. These are: contractual intention, agreement and consideration. The Definition of an Offer. This is an expression of willingness to contract made with the intention (actual or apparent) that it shall become binding on the offeror as soon as the person to whom it is addressed accepts it. An offer can be made to one person or a group of persons, or to the world at large.
This judgment given set criterion which is still been used in the modern court system and due to this case it was developed that an offer of contract can be unilateral and doesn’t have to be made to a specific party only. Also it was developed to that the acceptance of an offer does not require a notification and that once the concerned party purchases the product the contract is active then and there itself. And it was also established that purchase of an item is a fine example of consideration and therefore makes it a valid contract. (Smith, 2000).
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
Since Carlill V Carbolic, acceptance has developed and can be achieved in various ways: in writing, oral or it may be inferred by conduct (lisa sturgreon). This requirement of complete performance was emphasised in Daulia V Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1978] where Goff LJ stated: ‘I think the true view of a unilateral contract must in general be that the offeror is entitled to require full performance of the condition he has imposed and short of that he is not bound’ (see more Paul Richards). Furthermore, there is no need to give advance notice of such acceptance to the
2014). Moreover, binding contract is made at the time and place when the letter of acceptance is posted. In the case of Adams v Lindsell (1818) 106 ER where Lindsell wrote to Adam offering him some wool and asked him to reply by post too. However, Lindsell’s letter was delayed in the post. The day Adam received the letter, he immediately replied with an acceptance letter but before it could reach Lindsell, she had sold the wool to other party. This leads Adam to sue Lindsell for breaching of contract. The court is on Adam’s side as there was an agreement made the moment he posted the acceptance letter to Lindsell (the postal acceptance rule). Moreover, Lindsell cannot argue the mode of acceptance used by Adam as she was the one asking him to do