I need help with my law assingment thats due in asap please

However there is a mix of contract and tort.

There's no tort involved. The relationship is contractual.

Tort can claims can be found in contractual relationships. It's interesting here because the damage is potentially personal injury, typically thought of as under the tort of negligence. So do you claim under the contract for damages or under tort?

I don't know much about personal injury law, so I don't know the answer. Forum user might have an idea but I suspect his practice doesn't involve much of this.

There's no tort involved. The relationship is contractual.

The doctor who examines Desmond tells him that he has second degree burns and asks whether the hairdressers carried out a skin patch test.
Desmond says that they did not.

The above could easily fall into tort of negligence.

I disagree. If the duty arises under contract, it's dealt with under contract law. Of course, i see your point. If you conclude that no contract actually was formed, you are 100% correct that you would then consider if a duty of care arises under tort law.

So if we assume that in the scenario there, the parties did not contemplate loss, then based on what you say there would be no remedy because its contractual so its dealt with under contract law. Stupid and ridiculous and wrong.

The claim regarding the hairdresser would be based upon taking reasonable and therefore BOTH breach of contract AND tort are available. When claiming in contract, parties must have contemplated loss, however if no loss was contemplated then tort is available because only the type of loss needs to be forseeable.

That's not what i said. I said that this case doesn't concern tort, because it's a contractual relationship between the parties. I never said that a contractual relationship bars a claim for negligence in all cases, but whether a claim for negligence exists is a matter for contract law and not tort in the present case. The issue is whether the contract allows for a claim of negligence to made.

Jesus, your not making any sense what soever. I'm not here to argue but you specifically said there is no tort in the scenario so therefore you assume there is no contemplation of loss.

Where is the fundamental contemplation of loss by both parties in the above scenario??? Its inconclusive to whether they did or they didnt so therefore tort must be considered as an option. This my last post regarding this, so you can argue further if you want to.

. When claiming in contract, parties must have contemplated loss, however if no loss was contemplated then tort is available because only the type of loss needs to be forseeable.

Technically, you do have a good point. But in this context, i would argue you claim based on the contractual relationship because the duty of care arises from a contractual relationship, and the failure to use the proper skill and care is an implied contract term, and was thus breached. You could also consider the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 as well regarding the suitability of the dye used. I don't see any tort arising in this problem question, as the cause of action depends on the contract (i.e. the exclusion clause).

Additionally, the simplicity of the question makes me think its a first year contract law problem question. It's probably unlikely at this level that they would expect the OP to argue tort law that he hasn't covered yet in a contract law assignment.

Yeah, the emphasis should be on the topic you are doing. If you're doing contract law, there is little point arguing 2/3 pages about tort actions and vice versa. It is sensible to bring up tort as supplementary comment, designed to show awareness of other issues, but nothing more than that. It also confuses people like OP to bring up "advanced" points which are far from the basics they're asking for help with.

Contractual exclusion clauses cover tortious liability usually and you will see this with many secondary obligations, e.g. arbitration clauses (inherently contractual) cover tortious liability arising from a contractual dispute. But I see your point. For me, the question is either academic or hyper-practical (i.e. which regime would form more generous damages). Neither of which is something OP should concern themselves with at this stage in their academic career.

Tort can claims can be found in contractual relationships. It's interesting here because the damage is potentially personal injury, typically thought of as under the tort of negligence. So do you claim under the contract for damages or under tort?

I don't know much about personal injury law, so I don't know the answer. Forum user might have an idea but I suspect his practice doesn't involve much of this.

There is a tortious claim but it seems likely to be coterminous with the duty implied into the contract under SOGA 1982. Occasionally parties claim in tort rather than contract (possibly vice versa) for reasons relating to limitation periods (e.g. Henderson v Merrett). That doesn't seem to be relevant here because the time limit in a personal injury claim is the same however the duty arises (s. 11 Limitation Act 1980). There also used to be reasons relating to the different rules of foreseeability / remoteness etc but my recollection is that there is a CoA case saying that you just apply the contractual rules where there is a concurrent duty.

Contractual exclusion clauses and choice of law clauses should (I think) affect any tort claim in the same way.