Common Law

Assignment Title: Contract Law Understanding And Applying

Class 3, Grade 2

Christy Luo (Luo Nan)

Task A Specific Terms In A Business Contract

1 Term
A The representation of this case is the car as 1994 Ford Mondeo, cayman blue, registration number L931 AJU. The condition is a 1994 Mondeo which has done 30000 miles and has had only one owner with the priced $3995. And the warranty is this second-hand car hundreds of used car bargains and definitely the lowest price in Britain. All cars purchased this month will include road fund tax, radio, stereo and a full tank.

B If the car has done more than 30000 miles or has moer than one owner.According Specific performance,requires a party to perform a specific act, usually what is stated in a contract. It is an alternative to awarding damages, and is classed as an equitable remedy commonly used in the form of injunctive relief concerning confidential information or real property. While specific performance can be in the form of any type of forced action, it is usually used to complete a previously established transaction, thus being the most effective remedy in protecting the expectation interest of the innocent party to a contract. It is usually the opposite of a prohibitory injunction but there are mandatory injunctions which have a similar effect to specific performance.Under the common law, specific performance was not a remedy, with the rights of a litigant being limited to the collection of damages. However, the court of equity developed the remedy of specific performance as damages often could not adequately compensate someone for the inability to own a particular piece of real property, land being regarded as unique. Specific performance is often guaranteed through the remedy of a right of possession, giving the plaintiff the right to take possession of the property in dispute. However, in the case of personal performance contracts, it may also be ensured through the threat of proceedings for contempt of court. (306 words)

2 Exemption clauses
An exclusion (or exemption) clause is a clause which seeks to release one of the parties from liability should something go wrong with the contract. (Textbook P.96) An exclusion clause must be properly incorporated into a contract before it has any legal effect. The Elements of a Negligence Action A typical formula for evaluating negligence requires that a plaintiff prove the following four factors by a "preponderance of the evidence": First, the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff (or a duty to the general public, including the plaintiff); Second ,the defendant violated that duty; Third, as a result of the defendant's violation of that duty, the plaintiff suffered injury; Fourthly, the injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action or inaction.

Foreseeability and proximity Foreseeability means whether a hypothetical 'reasonable person' would have foreseen damage in the circumstances. Proximity is shorthand for Lord Atkin's neighbour principle. It means that there must be legal proximity, i.e. a legal relationship between the parties from which the law will attribute a duty of care. D has Health problems.d's blood pressure to be high is the Proximate Cause.When to decide whether there has duty reasonable foreseeability is a key element.d Should their health has the foresight judgment. . In my opinion, P can win the lawsuit, if P initiated an action against D for breach of contract. Firstly, they sign the contract is valid for 1978 to 1979, but D want to resign the job because he find other job in August, that is he first breach the contract. Secondly, D

resign the job because of his health, in Sep. 8 1978. Thirdly, the resign of D cause the loss of P. And they dont have any exemption clauses in the contract or any put forward before the contract is made. So, I think D must compensate the loss of P. (323 words)

Task B

Tortious Liability

The primary issue presented here is whether an owner may protect personal property in an unoccupied, boarded-up farm house against trespassers and thieves by a spring gun capable of inflicting death or serious injury. We are not here concerned with a mans right to protect his home and members of his family .Defendants home was several miles from the scene of the incident to which we refer to. Plaintiff testified he knew he had no right to break and enter the house with intent to steal bottles and fruit jars therefrom. Plaintiff should testify he enter a building. He stated he had been fined $ 50 and costs and paroled during good behavior from a 60-day jail sentence. Except minor charges are first to brush with the law. On this civil case appeal it is not our prerogative to review the disposition made of the criminal charge against him. The law has always placed a higher value upon human safety than upon mere rights in property. There is no privilege to use any force calculated to cause death or serious bodily injury to repel the threat to land or chattels, unless there is also such a threat to the defendants personal safety as to justify self-defense. Spring guns and other man traps are not justifiable against a mere trespasser, or even a petty thief. They are privileged only against those upon whom the owner of the real estate, if he were present in person would be free to inflict injury of the same kind. The value of human life and limb, not only to the individual concerned but also to society, so outweighs the interest of a possessor of land in excluding from it those whom he is not willing to admit thereto that a possessor of land has no privilege to use force intended or

likely to cause death or serious harm, unless the intrusion threatens death or serious bodily harm to the occupiers or users of the premises. A possessor of land cannot do indirectly and by a mechanical device that which, were he present, he could not do immediately and in person. The possessor of land may not arrange his premises intentionally so as to cause death or serious bodily harm to a trespasser. The possessor may take some steps to repel a trespass. He may use force, but only that amount which is reasonably necessary to repel the intruder. Moreover if the trespass threatens harm to property only even a theft of property the possessor would not be privileged to use deadly force, he may not arrange his premises so that such force will be inflicted by mechanical means. If he does, he will be liable even to a thief who is injured by such device. We express no opinion as to whether punitive damages are allowable in this type of case. 480 words

Task C

Tort of Negligence

Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury. It is not necessarily the closest cause in time or space nor the first event that sets in motion a sequence of events leading to an injury. Proximate cause produces particular, foreseeable consequences without the intervention of any independent or unforeseeable cause. It is also known as legal cause. To help determine the proximate cause of an injury in Negligence or other TORT cases,

courts have devised the "but for" or "sine qua non" rule, which considers whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act. A finding that an injury would not have occurred but for a defendant's act establishes that the particular act or omission is the proximate cause of the harm, but it does not necessarily establish liability since a variety of other factors can come into play in tort actions.

The plaintiff cannot charge the guards as protected against intentional invasion of her bodily security, it is protected against unintentional invasion by conduct involving in the thought of reasonable men an unreasonable hazard. However, it just rare exceptions. In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, at the back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which would have avoided the injuring. As we can see from this case, The conduct of the defendants guard , if wrong in its relation to the holder of the package, was not a wrong in is relation to the plaintiff, standing far away. Relatively to her it was not negligence at all. Nothing in the situation gave notice that the falling package had in it the potency of peril to persons thus removed. Negligence is not actionable unless it involves the invasion of a legally protected interest, the violation of a right. In my opinions, I think the charge of the defendants should be reversed. The act of the defendants is a negligence and cause the injuring of other people. So, they have not to be responsible for the plaintiff. The duty must be owed toward the particular plaintiff.The question of liability is always a anterior to the question of the measure of the consequences that go with liability. We may assume, without deciding, that negligence, not at large or in the abstract, but in relation to the plaintiff, would entail liability for any and all consequences. (410 words)