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

russ1289
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
Desmond, a regular customer at Identity Hair Salon, has just had his hair cut and coloured
by Jude, the stylist. Desmond requested that his dark hair be bleached to a platinum blonde
colour for an intervi
ew he has tomorrow.
When paying Desmond fails to notice a sign saying:
“Identity Hair Salon undertake no liability for death, injury or other losses
resulting from our service or products”.
On leaving the shop, Desmond sees his hair in the dayli
ght and not
ices that it has turned
green.
He is also left with a burning sensation. He decides he should have this checked out
and attends A and E. 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.
Advise Desmond whether he can bring an action and what remedies may be available to
him.
0
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Do you have any thoughts of your own?
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
It's a relatively straightforward problem question. You need to identify the legal issues that the question poses, and tackle them one by one.

Use the following structure.

1) INTRODUCTION: Identify the legal issues that are raised by the facts of the problem.

2) ISSUE #1: Explain the issue. State the law relevant to this issue. Apply the law to the facts of the case. Reach a conclusion over if an action can be taken, and the available remedies.

3) Repeat step 2 for every issue that you have identified

4) CONCLUSION

The trick is to read the question thoroughly and make sure you spot every issue.

So for example, your starting point for this question is an obvious one. Did a contract exist? This requires a single sentence only. If you correctly conclude it did, you now need to consider if this contract was breached. All the information regarding the sign only becomes relevant if you conclude that the contract was, in fact, breached.

If you find a breach or breaches, you then consider if the sign is incorporated into the contract and if is valid (look up exclusion clauses in your textbook/lecture notes).
0
reply
J Papi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
*Yawn* Note down the relevant issues and go through your textbook to see what the law might say on each of them.

It's the best way of getting started when you clearly know **** all about the topic and have no notes.
1
reply
james_law
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
No ones going to spoon feed you. Provide some thoughts as to what you think and people will be alot more inclined to help you. If this is an assignment, im pretty sure you would have been taught all the relevant law and principles to be able to answer such a question. However there is a mix of contract and tort. I use the follwing structure.
Issue - what is the legal issue at hand
Rule - what is the law surrounding this issue
Application - apply the law to the facts
Conclusion - what is the judgement or most likely outcome.

Most students will not set out the basic foundations of the law so therefore nothing else can recieve top marks. You need to make sure you set out the law so your application is really good.
1
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by james_law)
However there is a mix of contract and tort.
There's no tort involved. The relationship is contractual.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
This is crazy. I know someone who is asking advice about this very issue -- completely identical. The important point is to note under Consumer Rights Act 2015 for services you request repeat performance and if that's not possible then refund (called price reduction under the Act), which does not exclude action for damages. As you will know, CRA does not allow you to exclude liability for not using reasonable care when carrying out a service. What if client waives the safety measures -- can this protect the trader?

People in these situations want not only their money back but also compensation for damage caused. Meaning refund and money on top of that to set things right.

EDIT: I should also point out that CRA at section 65 bars exclusions of liability for death and personal injury. Section 57(1) talks about a term, excluding liability for not carrying out the service with reasonable care, not being binding. And section 54(6)-(7) talk about other remedies, such as damages, being open to the consumer on top of the remedies of repeat performance and price reduction.

(Original post by RV3112)
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.
2
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Notoriety)

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.
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.
0
reply
james_law
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by RV3112)
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.
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by james_law)
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. As i mentioned above, it just seems like a typical first year contract law problem question. I don't believe it's necessary for the OP to consider tort.
0
reply
james_law
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by RV3112)
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 in the scenario that, 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 care 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.
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by james_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.
0
reply
james_law
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by RV3112)
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.
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by james_law)
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.
I have no idea what you are on about. You would apply Hadley v. Baxendale, and the rest of that cohort. It's not complicated. The availability of tort in this case has nothing to do with the "fundamental contemplation of loss by both parties in the above scenario". Because it is a contract, and the damage resulted as a result of the breach, whether you have a cause of action depends on the terms of the contract. It depends on if the exclusion clause is incorporated into the contract. Certainly in the above scenario, applying Miley v McKechnie, it was by virtue of his regular custom. The issue then becomes if the exemption clause should be upheld, considering cases like Camarata Property Inc v Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited. There's no tort law to be considered in this particular problem question whatsoever.

(Original post by james_law)
. 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.
Perhaps on Mars, this is the law, but it certainly isn't in England. This is completely wrong and utterly irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, try reading Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries. In your own words, stupid, ridiculous and wrong.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by RV3112)
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.
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Notoriety)
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.
100% Agree.
2
reply
Forum User
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by Notoriety)
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.
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by james_law)
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.
There is definitely a possible tort claim. Just because there is a contractual relationship doesn’t eliminate or override a duty of care that would be otherwised owed under normal standards of care in tort. I’m actually more than a little confused as to where you’re getting the idea that there is no tort. As Forum User indicated, you could choose which cause of action you wanted to pursue. Indeed, having done litigation work, this question has actually arisen (contract vs. negligence), and I have litigated it on the basis of negligence.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by NYU2012)
There is definitely a possible tort claim. Just because there is a contractual relationship doesn’t eliminate or override a duty of care that would be otherwised owed under normal standards of care in tort. I’m actually more than a little confused as to where you’re getting the idea that there is no tort. As Forum User indicated, you could choose which cause of action you wanted to pursue. Indeed, having done litigation work, this question has actually arisen (contract vs. negligence), and I have litigated it on the basis of negligence.
That user is challenging someone else who said there was no tort.
(Original post by Forum User)
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.
Yeah, as common sense would require, you have tortious liability where you have not expressly or impliedly agreed there would not be.

But automatically there is tortious liability stemming from contractual disputes, although the courts have at points been very reluctant to admit this. At current they seem to think that tortious liability should be equally extensive as the contractual liability under the contract (as to avoid inconsistencies), but there are exceptions to this where policy requires. Typically in PI cases, in fact.
0
reply
NYU℠
Badges: 20
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by Notoriety)
That user is challenging someone else who said there was no tort.

Yeah, as common sense would require, you have tortious liability where you have not expressly or impliedly agreed there would not be.

But automatically there is tortious liability stemming from contractual disputes, although the courts have at points been very reluctant to admit this. At current they seem to think that tortious liability should be equally extensive as the contractual liability under the contract (as to avoid inconsistencies), but there are exceptions to this where policy requires. Typically in PI cases, in fact.
I quoted the wrong person. Whoopsies. Obviously why I shouldn’t do litigation work anymore
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Norwich University of the Arts
    Postgraduate Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 23 Jan '20
  • SOAS University of London
    Development Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies, Anthropology and Sociology, Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Arts, Economics, Law, History, Religions and Philosophies, Politics and International Studies, Finance and Management, East Asian Languages & Cultures Postgraduate
    Sat, 25 Jan '20
  • University of Huddersfield
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Sat, 25 Jan '20

How many universities have you heard back from?

0 (76)
15.05%
1 (70)
13.86%
2 (65)
12.87%
20.59%
20.2%
5 (88)
17.43%

Watched Threads

View All