商务契约关系 outcome3

1

a.Explain the duty of care

The meaning of duty of care is no liability for a failure to take due care unless there was a duty to take care in the first place. A duty of care is imposed by both the common law and by statutory law. For example, the provisions of the Health&Safety At Work Act1974. The duty of care is therefore someone whom the defender ought to have contemplated as within sufficient proximity to the defender to be owed a duty of care.you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law , is my neighbour? The answer seems to be : persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question. In the Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) case, in this case, Mrs. Donoghue bought an opaque bottle of ginger beer for her friends in a cafe in paisley, and the shopkeeper poured some ginger beer over ice cream in a glass which Mrs. Donoghue drank. Then ,her friends find out the decomposed snail in the bottle. Mrs. Donoghue alleged because drunk the contaminated ginger beer, she suffered a serious illness. Because Mrs. Donoghue didn't have a contract with the seller nor with the manufacturer of the goods, So the only saving way is the manufacturer not taking care in the production of the product.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P279-283)

b.Is Carla correct? The common law and statutory law.

It not correct, The definition of Common Law Duty is a personal one to take reasonable care for the employee’s safety. He is required to take the same care as a reasonable and prudent employer would take in the same circumstances. This includes a duty to provide safe working premises. And about the Statutory Duty, the main statute here is the Health and Safety At work Act 1974 (HASAWA). This was imposed on earlier existing safety legislation which was not repealed,

and so earlier legislation regulating safety in the workplace can still be relevant. And the implied terms are those which are not actually stated, but still impose obligations on the parties, and the reasons such as necessary to make the contract work, obvious or assumed, by custom and practice, by statute.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P326-329)

2. The defences about the contributory negligence and Volenti non fit injuria

About the contributory negligence, as well as the above defences, a defender may argue that the pursuer contributed to his or her own losses. And the defender has been negligent but the pursuer’s own actions, in failing to take care for his own safety, have partly contributed to his injuries. For example, in the case about Sayers v Harlow Urban Council (1958), Sayers because of trying to climb out of a faulty locked toilet cubicle, she got hurt. And her actions were not a novus actus interveniens , the local authority was liable. However, because she tried to climb out whilst putting weight on the toilet roll fitting which was fragile, the damages payable were reduced by 25%. In the case, Chris get hurts because of he fell from the ladder he was on , no one help him with the ladder. But the company during him training always say when he do this work need a person to help him to with the ladder. But he don’t ask anyone to help, this is a contributory negligence.The meaning of V olenti Non Fit Injuria , it must be shown that the pursuer freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of the risk involved agreed to take that risk. The defender must establish that the pursuer had free choice and this would not apply if he/she acted out of duty or out of fear of losing his/her job.in the case of Walton&Morse v Dorrington(1977), a secretary worked in an office where colleagues smoked but there was good ventilation. When they were moved to another office without such ventilation the smoke became an irritant and she left when the employers would not make any changes. The employers were held in breach of a duty to provide" a working environment which is reasonably suitable." In the case, this work which Chris