analyse the position in Contract law
This assignment requires you to analyse the position in Contract law, in the given scenario.
Your answer should:
– not exceed 2500 words (excluding bibliography) with a tolerance of 10%
– state and apply legal principles relevant to the law of Contract
– cite relevant case and statute law
– apply the relevant legal principles to the facts
– indicate matters of fact that may affect liability, and
– outline the legal remedies available, indicating how any damages will be assessed.
A class briefing will be given on the assignment, to give an opportunity to ask questions.
Working with other students is permissible in your investigation and research
Copying from published or Internet sources without acknowledgment is plagiarism, a serious disciplinary offence which could result in exclusion from the course.
Copied work MUST be properly acknowledged and referenced as to its source using the Harvard/APA 6th Edition referencing system.
If in doubt, please ask the lecturer.[unique_solution]
Attempt ALL questions.
PART A – 50 marks
Read the scenario below, and consider the legal position of Softwood Studios in Contract, in relation to two contracts (Wayland and Monster Props Inc).
You should consider matters relating to contract formation, contract terms, and legal remedies available.
You are NOT asked to consider the liability of Softwood in respect of the injured person.
SCENARIO
Softwood Studios, a film company (“Softwood”), was making a historical drama film.
Softwood’s props manager, Chloë, approached Wayland, a sword-maker, to make replica swords for fight sequences. “They must be able to stand up to something like a real fight”, Chloë told him. Wayland said that this was not a problem as he was a qualified sword-maker. He showed her two examples of finished swords, demonstrating them in a mock fight with his assistant.
Before closing the deal however, Chloë noticed a clause in Wayland’s terms that read, “my liability shall only extend to the value of the items ordered.” Chloë asked by email what this meant. Wayland emailed back, “That’s just in case your actors kill each other!” Chloë knew that Softwood carried full personal injury insurance, so went ahead; a contract was made for 10 swords at a total cost of £35,000.
During filming a sword blade broke and injured Larry, the ‘lead’ actor. Larry was hospitalised and required minor surgery. This disrupted the filming schedule, at extra costs to Softwood. Chloë felt that it was not safe to use any of the swords; Wayland offered to replace the batch of swords at no charge, but Chloë saw that it would take too long, and did not feel that he was reliable (she had by then discovered that Wayland had no qualification as a sword-maker).
Chloë looked online for replacements and found suitable replicas on the website of Monster Props Inc., a US company (“Monster”), with whom she had not dealt before.
Monster’s terms and conditions included the following:
- All contracts shall be governed by the federal law of the United States of America and these terms which shall prevail over any terms in the client’s order.
- Prices are subject to revision and we reserve the right to pass on any increase in costs since date of order to the client.
- No contract shall exist until we acknowledge client’s order.
Chloë emailed an order for 10 “Foehammer” swords at a cost of $45,000. Softwood’s order form carried the studio’s terms and these stated, “contract price to be as at date of order”.
Monster sent a brief email acknowledging the order and giving a delivery date. There was no mention of Softwood’s terms, nor did Monster re-send or refer to its own terms.
The “Foehammer” swords arrived accompanied by Monster’s invoice for $47,500 and a note expressing regret that material and labour costs had increased. Chloë is unwilling to pay the increased price.
PART B. NEGLIGENCE. CASE STUDY. 50 marks.
Discuss the civil liability in Negligence of Lowdown District Council (LDC) and/or any of its employees, arising out of the following incident.
Applying legal principles to the facts, discuss the liability of LDC and/or any of its employees, in respect of any claim for Negligence by Kenny and/or Stan.
Clearly state and apply the legal principles that are relevant in the situation.
Eric, Stan, Kyle and Kenny all are employees of LDC.
Eric is Manager in one of LDC’s open-plan offices, where many employees work in one room. Under him are colleagues Kyle and Kenny. Stan is a student in his first week of internship with LDC.
Eric asked Stan to get a box of files down from a high shelf. The shelf was above a “nest” of two desks occupied by Kyle and Kenny.
Stan was unable to reach the shelf. Although the office had a library step-ladder, it had been taken downstairs by Kenny some time before.
“Hurry up,” said Eric to Stan. He watched as Stan stood on a rotating swivel chair and reached to pull out the box.
At this point the chair began to spin around. Kyle, seeing the situation, grabbed hold of the chair to steady it. Unfortunately his hand pressed the chair’s height adjuster, and the chair seat dropped, moving downwards suddenly.
Stan dropped the box, which injured Kenny who was at his desk. Stan fell off the chair on to the floor. He was offered hospital treatment but said no.
On his way home, he passed out, fell off his bicycle, and was run over by a taxi, sustaining serious injuries.
Kenny (who did not like having to work below the shelf full of files, but was too scared of Eric to complain) suffered a deep cut to his forehead which needed stitches and has left a scar. His glasses were broken.