Greta tells her friend, Jala, that in appreciation of the love and affection she has shown Greta

Greta tells her friend, Jala, that in appreciation of the love and affection she has shown Greta

Question 1

Greta tells her friend, Jala, that in appreciation of the love and affection she has shown Greta over the past 5 years since her husband left her, she will give $20,000 when her bank term-deposit matures in 6 months. Six months later, when the term-deposit matures, Greta tells Jala she will take her out to dinner instead of paying her $20,000.

Ignoring the issue of intention, what will you advise Jala?

a) State the issue you need to consider.

b) State the relevant legal rule or rules relating to this problem.

c) State the main case or cases related to this problem.

d) Based on this information, if Jala sued Greta for a breach of contract would she win in court? What is your answer – yes? or no? Explain your answer.

KEY TAKEAWAYS BEFORE ATTEMPTING THIS ASSIGNMENT

Greta is a single mother who lives with her son, Liam. She has been dating Jala for about five years, but she hasn’t been able to commit to him because of her commitment to caring for her son.

Takeaway:

Greta should not have promised to pay Jala $20,000. She should have paid her when the term-deposit matured.

If you were Jala, what would you do?

Clearly, Jala should take Greta out to dinner and not pay her the $20,000. This is because Greta has shown her love and affection by giving her money over the past five years. It would be unfair for Greta to give Jala a gift now and then expect it back later on when they could have simply met up while both were in town.

Question 2

F offered to sell certain houses to H. H was given 14 days in which to accept the offer. The day after receiving the offer, H posted a letter of acceptance to F. After the letter was posted by H, but before it was received by F, F was offered a higher price for the houses by another buyer. F purported to withdraw his offer to H. F could not withdraw the offer if H had accepted the offer.

a) State and explain the relevant legal principle, underlying these facts

b) Using the four-step process and relevant case laws, show what would be the likely outcome were H to sue F for breach of contract.

Question 3

On 2 May 2020 the Browns, new clients, came to see you regarding investments opportunities. Andy and Tina Brown are preparing to operate a small business called Exam Ready Café on QUT’s City campus which specialises in comfort food for stressed students. Andy will perform the administrative duties such as sending bills to customers, answering the phone, and taking orders from stressed students as he has a calm personality. Tina is not a people person so she will cook and get orders out. Andy and Tina are married with 2 young daughters who they hope will continue the business. Both Andy and Tina want involvement in the management and ownership of the business. They intend to hire more staff, particularly QUT students, and wish to see the business continue for decades to come. Tina is aware that another operator has just been sued and was found liable for $300,000 dollars in damages after some plastic was found in a sandwich on campus. She is familiar with the people and a process involved however and believes appropriate food safety standards weren’t being followed. You are asked to provide advice on how the venture should be structured. This is to be communicated in a letter of advice to Andy and Tina setting out your recommendations for an appropriate business structure and why this choice is beneficial, along with any negatives. The facts are as above; your notes from the meeting are below.

Meeting Notes:

· Andy and Tina Brown

· 123 ABC Street, South Brisbane 4101 QLD

· H: 07 3138 1234

Question 4

Explain the elements of negligence and include relevant famous cases. What are the defenses of the tort of negligence?

The concept of negligence is an important one in the law. It exists when someone has failed to take reasonable care for their own safety or the safety of others, causing harm to another person. There are several theories that can lead to liability for negligence, such as strict liability and contributory negligence.

Elements of Negligence:

• Duty of care.
• Breach of duty of care.
• Harm caused by breach of duty of care.
• Causation and remoteness are different concepts, but they can be used together to determine whether a person should be liable for another’s injuries or damages when that person does not have the financial means to compensate them for their losses. A person who is negligent in his or her actions will usually be held responsible for any injuries caused by those actions through negligence, but there are certain exceptions where no liability may exist at all (for example: if you’re driving under the influence).

Duty of Care

Duty of care is the legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid causing injury or damage to another. This concept is a general principle in tort law and it applies to all individuals who have control over their actions, including businesses and organizations.

It has been established that every person has an obligation not only to refrain from acting with malice but also not acting negligently when acting in ways that could cause harm to others. The duty of care requires all individuals involved in any type of activity where there may be potential harm—such as driving a car—to exercise caution and take steps necessary for avoiding such injuries arising out of their conduct (i.e., if you’re driving your car at night without lights on).

Breach of the Duty of Care

The duty of care is a legal obligation to exercise reasonable care. Breach of this duty can occur when someone fails to meet the standard of care, which includes not only doing what is necessary to avoid injury but also taking appropriate steps to prevent that harm from happening in the first place.

The main defenses available against claims alleging breach of duty include:

• Contributory negligence – if you were partly at fault for your own injuries or damages as well as another person’s negligence;
• Insufficiency (lack) of evidence – there may not be enough proof beyond reasonable doubt that someone acted negligently;

Harm Caused by the Breach

The harm that is caused by the breach must be to a person or property of another. It can’t just be your own property, but also other people’s stuff. If you bump into someone while walking down the street, it won’t count as negligence unless they were injured by the accident.

The second element is that the damage must occur due to negligence on your part—that means that if you weren’t at fault for causing an accident in which someone was hurt (for example, if someone passed out after drinking too much), then there’s no liability here.

Finally: You have to be able to prove causation between your actions and what happened afterwards; this means having evidence from eyewitnesses or other sources showing how one thing led directly into another (like getting hit by car).

Causation and Remoteness

Causation:

• The act or process that produces a certain result.
• For example, the defendant’s neglect of his dog led to the plaintiff being bitten by the animal.

Remoteness:

• The temporal distance between when an injury occurred and when it was discovered by a victim’s health care provider. If an injury occurs two weeks before it is discovered by your doctor, then there is probably no negligence on their part because they were not able to prevent your injuries from happening in time for them to help you recover from them (unless something else happened). But if you go into surgery after being injured and have complications from those complications that keep you in the hospital longer than expected because of complications related directly back round issues with surgeries performed on other people who went through similar procedures at around same time period…then yes! This would be considered causation; however if those other surgeries went smoothly then there wouldn’t be any need for further treatment either way so let’s assume everything goes fine here too 🙂

A negligent act is a breach of civil duties imposed by law. Liability for negligence is determined on the basis that a person owes a duty to others not to expose them to unreasonable risks of harm. The concept of duty is an important one, as it is primarily through a duty that people are able to determine their rights and responsibilities in the law. In order to be found negligent in tort, there are four elements that must be proven:

The elements of negligence are:

• A breach of a duty owed by one party towards another.
• Causation and remoteness between the actual harm caused by this breach and any resulting damage suffered by the victim.

Duty of care

Duty of care is a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. It is a legal obligation that arises from the relationship between two parties, and in this case it is imposed by law. As such, you have a duty not only because you’re an adult but also because of your role as an adult: it’s not just something that adults do but rather something they should do because they have responsibilities toward others (and themselves).

The tort of negligence involves failure on the part of one person—the plaintiff—to exercise proper judgment when acting in his/her own best interests and those of another party involved in the same situation (the defendant).

Conclusion

In summary, the elements of negligence are:

• Duty of care
• Breach of the duty of care
• Harm caused by the breach of duty
• Causation and remoteness from which harm results

WOULD YOU LIKE A CUSTOM ESSAY JUST FOR YOU? CLICK “Continue to Order” or “Get a Quote” below to continue.

Get Assignment Help- Confidentially!