This paper is to discuss the case study entitled Hot Coffee as it relates to the victim Stella Liebeck and to answer the questions included in the case study.
Caveat Emptor is Latin for “let the buyer beware.” A doctrine that often places on buyers the burden to reasonably examine property before purchase and to take responsibility for its condition. Especially applicable to items that are not covered under any strict warranty. According to this doctrine Stella Liebeck is responsible for her burns and the reason being is that Stella Liebeck would of known that the coffee was hot and should of taken extra care when handling the liquid as to not burn herself.
No the fact that she is seventy-nine years old does not make it more difficult to
…show more content…
The basic elements that make a contract legally enforceable are mutual assent, expressed by a valid offer and acceptance. The reason why a contract as arisen from this transaction is because there was an offer and an acceptance. The offer was the hot coffee and the acceptance was payment for that hot coffee and then receiving the hot coffee. The contract protects the consumer because in law there is there term “neighbour principle” laid down in the seminal case Donoghue v Stephenson (1932) provided the foundation and conceptual cornerstone for the development of the law of negligence in the twentieth century.” (Neighbour principle) This principle is all about the fact that you have to take reasonable care to avoid acts that you can reasonably foresee which would likely injure the neighbour. McDonalds knew that there was a problem with their coffee being too hot as they had over seven hundred complaints. McDonalds also had a rule in place that the coffee had to be held in a pot that was 185 degrees plus or minus. That temperature is extremely hot and therefore McDonalds know that at some point in time that someone could/would become burnt as a result of the temperature there for McDonalds did not abide by the neighbour principle which is created by a contract. Thus this is the reason why the consumer was protected by the
How was McDonald’s supposed to know that Stella would spill the coffee on herself? Coffee is meant to be served hot, just as blades are meant to be sharp. Stella suing for being burned by coffee is the same principal as a person suing a knife company after being cut by one of their products. The world is a dangerous place; many things around us have the capability to cause damage. Corporations should not be held responsible for any damage sustained after using their product improperly. McDonald’s could not have prevented Stella spilling the coffee on herself.
The four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. The oral agreement between Sam and the chain store satisfies the agreement element of a contract definition because when the chain store offered to sell Sam 's invention at their stores, Sam accepted by agreeing to ship 1000 units in exchange. The second element of a contract, the “consideration of each party,” is satisfied because Sam and the chain store have something to give the other (1000 units of the invention in exchange for the exclusive sales of the product at their stores). The third element is “contractual capacity,” which may or may not be fulfilled since we do not know Sam 's age or whether
Mamo v Surace (“Mamo”) examines fault and finality, in the context of an unavoidable accident. Definitional discussion emerges within the idea of “fault”, with the outcomes ultimately furthering the legal avenues of victims of blameless accidents, enabled by the separation of non-tortious negligence and “fault”. Notably, the dismissal of arguments raised at appeal furthers the notion that circumstantially, injustice must be endured for the sake of finality, to avoid greater an injustice inflicted upon the opposing counsel .
LAW1114 CASE ANALYSIS OLGA IGNATOVA v R [2010] VSCA 263 ________________________________________________________________ Part One: Case Summary The applicant, Olga Ignatova, scalded her then four-year-old daughter, Tara Shirname, when trying to clean her soiled daughter in her own home on 4 December 2007. Ignatova and her former husband Parag Shirname were involved in Family Court proceedings that required them to care for Tara on alternate weeks. On 7 December 2007, she handed Tara to Shirname with a note stating that she caught the same rash as before.
Firstly it is important to explore the reason of Consumer Law. Consumer Law is designed to prevent business to engage in unfair practices, gaining an advantage over competition and also to provide protection to those who are weak. Furthermore it is to provide protection to consumer, encourage consumption and help inform consumer and suppliers of their rights. Additionally Consumer Law helps deliver a competitive economy which engages in fair trade actions.
Even though consumers have great protection rights in Australian Customer Law, they have to understand that this law is designed to provide consumers and sellers a fair go. Therefore, consumers also have to be aware that they will not be protected if they are careless and make unreasonable demands.
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
We learned from Lau and Johnson (2014) text “strict liability torts require neither intent nor carelessness (p. 152).” Upon viewing Susan Saladoff’s movie documentary the Hot Coffee Movie Trailer link, I was intrigued to learn more about the case. I, too, was an individual who did not have all of the facts about the case. Let’s explore four questions for this week’s discussion which is all about the tort reform.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
Notably, the class of potential defendants in a product liability is extensive; it may include everyone in the distribution chain of the product (Wong 2010). The defendant may range from the manufacturer of the product to the seller or the lessor of the product. In addition, anyone who services the product or installs the product after purchase may stand liable in the event that the product is defective. Principally, the basis of action in a product liability litigation are the negligence, intent, strict liability, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and general misrepresentation (Wong 2010). In practice, prosecutions in product liability have significantly relied on the Third Restatement of Torts, on section 402A
Both the common law and the statutory law have recognized the weaker position of consumers. It is well established an exclusion clause will be valid and enforceable only if it is incorporated in the contract, use clear wordings and does not contravene statutory limits. In order to limit the unfairness resulting from exclusion clauses, the courts have developed certain principles such as the doctrine of non est factum in signature cases, ‘red ink-red hand’ principle in relation to ‘onerous or unusual’ terms, contra proferentem rule when interpreting ambiguous exclusion clauses and ‘fundamental breach’ principle.
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).
The basic law of a contract is an agreement between two parties or more, to deliver a service or a product. And reach a consensus about the terms and conditions that is enforced by law and a contract can be only valid if it is lawful other than that there can’t be a contract. For a contract to exist the parties must have serious intentions, agreement, contractual capacity meaning a party must be able to carry a responsibility, lawful, possibility of performance and formalities. Any duress, false statements, undue influence or unconscionable dealings could make a contract unlawful and voidable.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,