Contractual Law Case Study

The laws governing provision reward falls under contractual laws. Ryan (2005) notes that a contract is a “legally binding agreement” between two or more people to perform or refrain from doing an obligation, and from where the law can be applied in case of violation of the contract (p. 3). Morris’s case, however, the contract is unilateral whereby “there is no mutuality of obligation” to do or to withdraw from peforming a certain action (Patrick Cihon, 2008, p. 10). This means that the obligation to perform an action as intended is squarely on the offerer. Morris put notice on a notice board to reward anyone who returned Benji, his lost dog and a Smartphone with HK$10,000. When his neighbor Adam returned the Dog, Morris had an obligation to pay him the reward money, whether Adam knew about the reward or not and whether he asked for the reward or not. This is because by promising a reward, Morris was offering to enter into a contract with whomever returned his possessions. The money offer of HK$10,000 established a contract between him and whomever returned Benji or the Smartphone. Therefore, when Adam returned the Benji and did not receive the reward, Morris breached his own contract.

However, in the case of his son Barry returning the Smartphone, Morris has no obligation of paying

The accident was as a result of David’s negligence of the fact that he was not qualified to drive a car and that the possibility of causing an accident were, hence, higher. And therefore, David breached a duty of care and standard of care to Charles. Although David is a learner driver, he is required under the law he owes the same standard of care as any reasonable driver. This was established in the Nettleship V Weston (1971) case that a leaner driver has the same obligation as a reasonable driver (Bermingham & Brennan, 2016, p.