Business laws Assignment

Question: Cedric Inkspot is a talented chemist at Test Tube City Laboratories. Under his guidance the lab has been very successful in attracting research grants and government contracts. His 5 year contract with the lab was about to expire on 30 June. In late February he was sounded out by head hunters (an employment agency) for the chief chemist position at a rival lab. If he took the job it would require relocating his family interstate, requiring his wife to find a new job and new schools for his kids. In 1 March Cedric approached Uriah the chief chemist at Test Tube City and told him about the discussions he had with the head hunters. Cedric said it is a good offer Uriah but I would rather not disrupt the wife and kids. Uriah replied, Cedric you are an important part of the team. You have played a big part in our success and we are keen to keep that going. Cedric formed the impression from this that Test Tube City planned to extend his contract for the next five years. He replied, Great to Uriah and then shortly after telephoned the head hunters and explained that he was not interested in the proposal. He then returned to work with Test Tube City and did not raise the matter again. On the 25th June Uriah took Cedric aside and told him that because of liquidity problems they were retrenching large numbers of staff and would have to let Uriah go. Cedric was forced to look for other work which after some time he did obtain but for far less money than he was on. However at least his wife and children were not disrupted. Advise Walter whether he is entitled to damages from Test Tube City. Using ILAC what is the answer? Answer: Case Reference: Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace(1988) 15 NSWLR 130 Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420 McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 457 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR306 ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372 New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland [2003] HCA 4 (6 February 2003) Case 1: Issue: Whether Cedric is liable to get damages in the form of compensation from Test Tube City due to the breach of contract, which requires a presence of contract between the two parties? Law: The formation of a contract states that there must be an offer and acceptance. The parties must have an interest in the contract, and there shall be an offer and acceptance with valid consent from the parties (Wright et al. 2014). The parties in the contract are expected to make a valid application of the terms as promised under the terms of a contract. The terms of the contract must be clear to the person as a party to the contract. The concerned party is liable to carry on with the terms as mentioned in the contract. The breach of contract will likely to take place when the terms are not applied as stated. Application: An offer to the person explains about a valid contract. Cedric was in contract with "Test Tube City" and made no acceptance for an offer from Head Hunters" because of the assurance form the "Test Tube City". The ongoing business in the Test Tube City should calculate the present condition of the business before making the commitments. He made an uncertainty and illusory promise as in the matter of Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace for his interest and that created a breach of contract as in Fitzgerald v Masters. Hence, Cedric is liable to get the damages from Test Tube City as observed in McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd. Conclusion: Cedric is liable to get damages for breach of contract from Test Tube City. Case 2: Issue: Whether Noah breached the duty of care towards Danny, which requires prove of duty of care towards Danny and must cause some form of injury. Law: The duty of care as explained under the tort law is an obligation to avoid the harm reasonably forcibly and could avoid by carefulness (Trindade et al. 2012). The fact requires sufficient proximity between the two parties requiring the existence of the duty of care The duty of care termed as breached requires the presence of failure to conduct certain responsibilities for prevention (Foster and Apps 2015). The duty of breach is accomplished on the account of reaching injuries to the person. Application: The injury to the person caused due to the breach of a duty of care and the concerned person will have vicarious liability, and when the injured person contributes to the accident, then it is known as the contributory negligence (Lunney 2012). Danny here is a learner, and it is quite evitable that he will have a lack of idea regarding the management of time and space. It was the duty of Noah to take precautions at least by a display of hoarding in that area causing vicarious negligence liability as stated in the matter McLean v Tedman. Noah was liable to take care of the place he carried with the training as the accident caused to Danny could reach damage to the group of people, ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik. Some more cases can be put forward to support the presence of vicarious negligence from the part of Noah, New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland. Conclusion: Noah committed a breach of duty of care towards Danny. References: Barker, K., Cane, P., Lunney, M. and Trindade, F., 2012.The law of torts in Australia. Oxford University Press.Foster, N.J. and Apps, A.E., 2015. Lunney, M., 2012. Legal emigres and the development of Australian tort law.Melb. UL Rev.,36, p.494. The neglected tortBreach of statutory duty and workplace injuries under the Model Work Health and Safety Law.Australian Journal of Labour Law,28(1), pp.57-76. Wright, T., Ellinghaus, M.P. and Kelly, D., 2014. A Draft Australian Law of Contract.A Draft Australian Law of Contract (March 2, 2014).