Case 5
Marie-Claude operated a bowling alley in a commercial area that was adjacent to a residential area. Many small children used the parking lot near the bowling alley as a playground, and Marie-Claude was constantly ordering the children off the premises for fear that they might be injured by motor vehicles.
One young boy, about six years old, was a particular nuisance in that he could climb onto the flat roof of the bowling alley by way of a fence at the back of the building. Marie-Claude ordered the child off the roof on several occasions, but to no avail. The child continued to climb on the roof at every opportunity in spite of Marie-Claude’s instructions to the contrary.
On one occasion, when Marie-Claude was away from the premises, the child climbed to the roof and, while running about, tripped and fell to the ground. The fall seriously injured the child, and an action was brought against Marie-Claude.
Discuss the liability of Marie-Claude and her defences, if any. Render a decision.
Answer
In this case, Marie-Claude operates a bowling alley where children often come to play in a parking lot near the bowling alley. A six-year old boy is used to playing in the area and constantly climbs the flat roof of the bowling alley despite receiving warnings from Marie-Claude not to do so. One day, the child falls down from the flat roof of the bowling alley. As a result, he gets injured and a case is taken to court on behalf of the child against Marie-Claude.
The legal issue of question in this case is the injury that occurred to the child while playing at Marie-Claude’s bowling alley. This legal issue is concerned with the damage that occurred to the young child which occurred in terms of physical injury (Taylor & Taylor, 2007). It is also concerned with the question of whether Marie-Claude is responsible for the injury of the child or not. The judge should therefore rule about the liability of Marie-Claude and the compensation that should be given for the damage if she is found liable.
The defendant in this case is Marie Claude and the plaintiff is the injured child. The defendant is liable for negligence. This is because she breached an implied legal duty to take care of the child which has caused damage to him (Cooke, 2011). Marie-Claude had a duty of care, and she breached it because she did not take any precaution to discourage the boy from climbing the roof of his premises during her absence. The conditions that show negligence include duty of care, breach of that duty of care, damage of the claimant. One of the defenses of Marie-Claude is that she had reprimanded the boy without success.
The judge may rule that Marie-Claude has breached the duty of care for the child as a third party. Therefore, he may be required to pay for the damage caused to the boy through injury. However, the defendant may not be required to pay additional damage because she had warned the boy about danger several times.
Case 10
In this case, MacPherson bought two books from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, one in good condition and the other one in bad condition. MacPherson entered into an implied contract with a local library for a rare-book display. The local library displayed only the book in good condition and omitted the one in bad condition. When a buyer called Holt offered to purchase the book displayed by the local library, MacPherson gave him the book in bad condition thinking that it was the one that was seen by Holt on display.
The legal issue of this case is about breach of contract. There are many contracts of sale agreed by several parties in this case. MacPherson is the defendant in this case while Holt is the plaintiff. MacPherson is liable to a breach of contract because he did not give the book that was displayed in the local library as seen by Holt. However, he may also claim that he was not aware that the book in bad condition was not on display. When the two parties negotiated, MacPherson agreed on the price of the book in bad condition while Holt thought that that was the price of the book in good condition.
In this case, MacPherson should pay back the money paid by Holt and get back his book. He should then file a case against the local library and claim for damage because the local library breached the contract agreed upon by the two parties. The contract stated that the local party should display both the old and the new books; but the local library displayed only the books in good condition. Therefore, the local library should compensate MacPherson damages caused by the breach of contract.
Case 2
In this case, Good Times Bank offered a loan of $500,000 to Habitation Apartments Ltd. This loan was secured by a mortgage on the apartment building and personal guarantee of the company’s president, Simple. The president was later removed in the office and the new management restructured its loan to include additional rate of interest and other terms. Due to problems in the housing sector, the corporation was not able to repay its debts. Simple was asked to pay the loan under guarantee.
The corporation in this case acts as a legal person and when it is not able to pay its debts, the individual members of the company are not liable for the debt (Smith, 2006). Each member of the organisation acts on behalf of the company. Anyone who agrees to become a guarantor to a company does so in personal manner. In this case, Simple has acted as a guarantor.
When the new restructuring of the loan occurred after the departure of Simple from the corporation, the guarantor of the loan was not involved. Even though the new president and the Board of Directors have the right to make decisions regarding to various activities of the corporation (empowered by shareholders’ votes), the guarantor should have been involved in things that deal with the loan.
Because the contents of the new contract between the corporation and the bank are different from the contents of the original contract which the guarantor agreed on, the guarantor is not obliged to pay the loan under the new terms. If the bank takes a legal action against the corporation and guarantor, the corporation may have to negotiate with the guarantor to pay for the loan.
Case 4
This case involves Hansen vs. Sports Motor Sales Ltd. Hansen has entered into a contract with Sports Motors ltd whereby Hansen paid a deposit of $100 as he awaited for his loan. The bank had promised him $5,000 loan. However, there were problems with the loan and he could secure only $4,000. This means that he would fall short of $1,000.
This case mainly entails promises. Hansen promised to pay the required amount of money (price/consideration) to Sports Motors Ltd while Sports Motors Ltd promised to sale the car to him provided that his loan pulls through (Collins, 2003). Now that the loan has not succeeded, Sports Motor Ltd may choose to break the contract or reenter into a new contract with Hansen.
The time that was allowed for Hansen to repay the loan was 10 days. If the Sports Motor Sales Ltd wished to enforce the engagement, the court could grant it that wish because it had entered into a written contract in which it agreed to pay for the car in 10 days. The Sports Motor Sales Ltd may also choose to terminate the agreement because it already retained the sports car until the remaining balance of the vehicle were paid.
References list
Collins, H. (2003). The Law of Contract. London: LexisNexis, Butterworths.
Cooke, J. (2011). Law of Tort. London: Longman.
Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2011). Contract Law. London: Longman.
Smith, S.A. (2006). Atiyah’s Introduction to the Law of Contract. New York: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, R., & Taylor, D. (2007). Contract law: Directions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
