Law

Hi can anyone help in anyway with a Law question. I am currently studying Business and employement law and I am stuck on a particular question after reading it around 10 times, I am still confused.

scenario

Bart is visited by the sales representative of a company called Lovely Lighting LTD which manufactures individually designed shop window lighting. Bart agrees to purchase a sign which consists of the name "artybarti" in flashing red lights for his shop window. Bart signs the sales agreement without reading it. The agreement contains a statement that says " Lovely Lighting ltd accepts no liability in relation to the quality of the goods supplied, their fitness for purpose or weather they match any description provided for. liability for damage or personal injury is not accepted". when bart turns on the electrical power and checks the sign outside his shop he is annoyed that the sign says "artyfarti" and not "artybarty" . he then goes in the shop to call lovely lighting ltd to complain but as he does his sign catches fire and quickly spreads to valuable painting also on display in the shop window . bart attempts to save the painting using a fire extinguisher but trips over a wire attached to the sign. he puts the fire out however the painting is ruined and bart has bad burns to his hand and face.

question

Lovely lightings ltd liability to bart under the law of contract and tort.

can anyone help me with how I would answer this question.

Thank

Reply 1

Crazy Jamie

Careers Forum Helper

What is it that is confusing you about it? Do you not know how to structure your answer, or do you genuinely not know the points that you should be addressing in the answer?

Reply 2

law34

I know how to structure the anwser using the ILAC method, however i cant seem to know the points that needs addressing, such as what law that needs to be used in the anwser. Just generally confused on writing the anwser. :/.

Reply 3

Crazy Jamie

Careers Forum Helper

Ironically I'd never heard of the ILAC method before. I don't recall ever being taught that when I studied law, or if I did I have since forgotten it. Seems to be a fine way of structuring your answer either way.

I don't know to what extent you have studied contract law and tort law, but you need to start by separating them out. Address each of them individually and go through each of the main issues that generally falls within those areas. So for example, something like this:

CONTRACT: There is clearly a valid contract between the parties. On the face of it Lovely Lighting Ltd have breached the contract because they have not provided a sign in line with what Bart ordered. There are four basic areas that Bart would want to be compensated for;

i) A new sign because the old one was wrong;
ii) In the alternative, a new sign because the old one was faulty and was destroyed when it caught fire;
iii) Damages for the painting that was destroyed in the fire;
iv) Damages for personal injury caused to Bart

So you need to consider whether the law of contract generally would allow Bart to be compensated for those particular areas. If you conclude that Bart would ordinarily be able to recover damages in some or all of those areas, you then need to consider whether the terms of the contract that exonerate Lovely Lighting of liability are valid and offer the protection that they seem to provide on the face of it. The fact that Bart didn't read the written agreement is also something that may be relevant.

PERSONAL INJURY: Same process, as the areas of compensation are the same, but this time it's in tort law. So, does tort law allow Bart to recover damages in principle in those areas? If so, is there are a causative link between the negligence and the individual heads of loss? Is the damage foreseeable? Is it too remote? If you think there could be liability to some extent, does the exclusion clause have effect? In other words, can you use a term of a contract to exclude liability for personal injury and/or other damages arising out of a tortious breach?

It may well be that I've missed something, as that's off the top of my head having scanned over the question, but hopefully that's given you some degree of assistance.

Reply 4

law34

Thanks for the Help, much appreciated.

ILAC method as in the Issue, Law, Application & conclusion method?

Also if the sales agreement contains a statement that says that Lovely lighting liability for personal injury and damage wont be accepted, then can Bart still be compensated for the four areas that you have mentioned?

Reply 5

Crazy Jamie

Careers Forum Helper

Original post by law34

ILAC method as in the Issue, Law, Application & conclusion method?

That's the one. I don't recall ever being taught it, though that doesn't mean I wasn't.

law34

Also if the sales agreement contains a statement that says that Lovely lighting liability for personal injury and damage wont be accepted, then can Bart still be compensated for the four areas that you have mentioned?

That's one of the things that you need to figure out for yourself. The question is quite simply whether it is possible to exclude or restrict liability for negligence using a contract term. The answer is very straightforward, but I'm afraid you'll have to find it yourself.

Law

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you