Business Law Case Study

Surname 1

Student's Name

Instructors’ name

Course name

Date of submission

Business Law (Case Study)

Business law relates to the everyday exchange of goods and services that require individuals to

get into agreements for the purchase, sale, and transfer of ownership of a good. The contracts in

business take the form of a commercial bargain which involves the exchange of goods and

services at an agreed price and which is enforceable in a court of law (Halbert and Ingulli, pg.,

9). Contracts may be written or oral and for it to be binding there must exist an unqualified

acceptance, intention to get into legal agreements, consideration, and willingness to consent. The

conditions, however, must be definite, within the jurisdiction of the law and can be performed.

Businesses are thus bound to act in accordance with the statutory laws as well as any other laws

that pertain its engagements with others. As a person, a business entity is therefore prosecutable

by law and can take responsibility for any liability as may be determined by law.

The two people, Suzy and Samuel, when bumping into the seller on the street, they are

made aware of the conditions and the quality of the products that both are bargaining. Caveat

emptor principle dictates that the buyer will buy the good "as is" or subject to the defects, it has.

As such, it is in the buyer domain to realize that the product may fail to meet their needs. The

rule here is that the seller sells the products and the buyer is mandated to judge and examine the

Surname 2

products they intend to purchase. Suzy and Samuel are aware of the state of the products at the

point of sale and therefore the validity of this dictate. Even in the event of dissatisfaction, they

would not be in a position to negotiate any terms with the seller.

Betty, on realizing what the friends have bought gets furious and yells at them. This kind

of distraction cause a lot of emotional discomfort for the two parties, Samuel and Suzy, and in

self-defence wants to hit Betty. She passes out though, without even being hit. The inaction of

Suzy, however, is the reason why she knocks out. Under the law of torts, the intentionality of the

action by Suzy makes Betty succumb to head injury. Betty, therefore, becomes liable to Suzy.

On the other hand, Lifesaver in his intention to stop Suzy from hitting Betty hits a bystander,

Pam, who in turn gets hurt and loses a phone. Both of them are liable of criminal intent since

their actions lead to hospitalization of the victims. Lifesaver fails to take reasonable care of the

arguing parties by throwing a concrete pebble at them that hits a bystander. For that matter, if

taken to court, the chance that Pam succeeds in suing him is high and will, therefore, have to pay

economic damages (Halbert and Ingulli, pg., 29). As regards the property damage, (phone)

litigation property damages come into play, and the defendant will have to pay for the damaged

phone. On the other hand, the application of punitive punishment on the part of Lifesaver is also

possible because of his action; the plaintiff suffers loss and damage. The plaintiff, Pam is the

party expected to succeed.

When an argument ensues, Lifesaver moves to try to ease the tension between the

warring parties. On his way, however, he gets hurt by stepping on rubles left by AJ Constriction

Company. The employees working on behalf of the constriction firm become negligent of their

responsibility to clear the sidewalk due to the need to rush home. It is through their negligent

Surname 3

action that Lifesaver suffers the injury. In this case, the employee, acting on behalf of the

employer, AJ construction causes harm to a third party, Lifesaver, hence employer's vicarious

liability. The employees and the employer have a duty of care to the claimant who has been hurt.

Following their operation the previous day, the employees discover their negligence that they are

liable to Lifesaver (Halbert and Ingulli, pg., 40). Additionally, the hotel Le Bon Hotdog is

subject to the New York City ordinance. However, the careless and unreasonable disposal of

waste forms part of the negligence by the company as the leakage of grease is part of the reason

why Lifesaver slips and falls. Lifesaver is the likely winner in this case.

AJ Construction Company violates the rule to the reasonable care of parties it owes its

services to by failing to adhere to safety protocols and the general New York Ordinance Rules,

which requires all organizations to keep the sidewalks clear. Its employees intentionally fail to

clear the debris left after their repair works so that they can get home on time (Stein, pg., 689).

The third party here suffers a broken ankle that apparently means he has to incur medical

expenses. The company, therefore, is liable to Lifesaver; compensating him for the damages

under the tort of negligence. Lifesaver has the upper hand in this case since the construction

company failed to complete their job out of willful negligence and hence the tortious act.

By speaking ill of both Suzy and Samuel, Betty is guilty of slander, which is classified as

a tort. The statements of Betty causes Suzy and Samuel emotional breakdown. Despite the words

not being written, the pronunciations stir an uproar that causes the passes by to jeer Suzy and

Samuel for believing what Suzy purports. Suzy, due to being angry, raises a shoe with the

intention of hitting Betty. The act is willful and out of intention. Even though Betty ducks, Betty

ends up hurt leaving Suzy guilty of a criminal offence because Suzy is blameworthy in thought

Surname 4

and action. Both Suzy and Betty are culpable and liable to the other, Betty for defamation and

Suzy for the torturous act. It is therefore imperative that Betty and Suzy may face damages

claims from either Suzy or Betty due to their actions. However, Betty seems to be more wrong in

that, the freedom of speech does not extend up to the point of infringing on the fundamental

rights and freedoms of another and secondly, it is not in Suzy' position to take Betty out on

shopping sprees since it is an independent choice.

Conclusively, business is a culmination of different transactions that bring together

different actors. These actors, however, are expected to act in a manner as to exhibit responsible

behaviour such that in their interactions, the risk of loss or harm is minimized or avoided

altogether. Business as a legal person under law owes its stakeholders and any other third party

care, and failure to which, is culpable for crime and on a determination by the courts ruling can

be punished. Individuals found violating these laws and are blameworthy have to be charged

accordingly.

Surname 5

Works Cited

Halbert, Terry, and Elaine Ingulli. Law and ethics in the business environment. Cengage

Learning, 2011.

Harper, Fowler V., Fleming James, and Oscar S. Gray. "Harper, James and Gray on torts."

(2009).

Stein, Michael Ashley. "Priestley v. Fowler (1837) and the emerging tort of negligence." BCL

Rev. 44 (2002): 689.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."