Commercial Law Assignment
Issue
Tamara is chocolate addicted and her favourite brand is only available in Aldi Supermarket. She gets upset as most of the day, the chocolate bars are sold out. On one day, Tamara saw one bar remaining and she rushed towards the shop when she slipped on a puddle created by melted ice cream and this incident broke her back bone. She incurred general damage expenses of $70000 whereas the main issue of this case is to decide whether Tamara can sue the Aldi Supermarkets for negligence. Apart from that, another issue is to decide whether Aldi Supermarkets can procure sustainable defence for contributory negligence in this case or not.
Rule
In the case between Donoghue vs. Stevenson (1932), the court depicted that the plaintiffs can sue the defendant for the acts of negligence that has caused physical or material damage for the plaintiff. On the other hand, the case between Moody vs. Sullivan (2001) had elucidated the duty of care as the automatically imposed onus on the defendants to safeguard the material and physical health of the plaintiff. The duty of care ought to be followed by all manners whereas the case between Lindsay and Justin Pty Ltd. (1978) differed by saying that the duty of care is very much confined for the defendant as it is only liable for the plaintiffs with proximate relationship (Perry, 2007). As per the section 23 of the Contributory Negligence Act 1945, the proximate relationship is the integral connection between the plaintiff and the defendant that fosters the suffering of immediate consequences of the action of the defendant on the plaintiff.
As per the case of Perre vs. Apand Pty. Ltd (1999), the proximate parties incur liability for the defendant to provide care to the plaintiff for avoiding any breach of the civil liability and tort law of United Kingdom. Apart from that, the case between Sutherland Shire Council vs. Heyman (1985) had also discussed about the liability of the defendant to eliminate all kind of foreseeable risks that can cause damage to the plaintiff. Apart from that, the section 9 of the Civil Liability Act 1978 depicted that the corporate organisations need to ensure the complete physical, mental and financial safety of the stakeholders including customers for performing legal duty of care (Symmons, 2007). As per the section 9 of the Law Reform Act 1945, the defendants are liable to at least warn the plaintiffs on the potential risk hazard in case of their immediate incapacity to attain the risk eradication process (Gardner, 2011). This aspect was also ventilated in the case between Kralj v McGrath (1986) as the judge depicted that it was the duty of Kralj to warn McGrath about the potential danger in the workplace that can cause physical damage. Kralj did not even put a warning sign for attracting the sight of the visitors as the defendant was temporarily incapable to attain the risk hazard. In the case between Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman (1968), the court depicted that the duty of care is integrally attributed to the companies and workplaces as the visitors and employees are needed to be safeguarded by management to avoid any breach in the duty of care. The section 21(1) of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 had depicted that the act of negligence is considered as a prior violation of duty of care that can raise compulsion against the accused to bear compensation and the damage to the
plaintiff in order to avoid further legal prosecution as per the English Tort Law (Hunter et al. 2007).
Application:
In this case, the duty of care was on Aldi Supermarket as they were completely liable to clean their aisle properly in order to secure the area to avoid any unwanted incident of slipping. The duty of care is also evident for Aldi Supermarkets as they were responsible for the safeguard of the customers like Tamara. Aldi Supermarkets has breached the duty of care by causing damage to the customers. On the other hand, the accident of Tamara was surely a result of negligence from the supermarket management who failed to clean the floor to remove the ice cream. The law for negligence along with defence for contributory negligence are compatible with the case of Tamara and Aldi. The negligence is basically tort law oriented that directs Aldi supermarket to procure effective risk management practices to nullify every kind of possible risks from the market area to safeguard both the employees and the customers from any danger.
Tamara can sue the Aldi Supermarket for their negligence that caused her $700000 for treatment whereas she can also claim an additional compensation for the accident she suffered. It is considered as a prior concern for the supermarkets like Aldi to perform duty of care as Aldi failed to perform this duty completely. Though, Aldi claims about timely cleaning of the aisle still it was evident that there was a melting ice cream on the floor. That ice cream triggered the slipping and accident of Tamara which could be avoided if Aldi performed their duty properly by cleaning the ice cream at once to avoid any accident. On the other hand, Aldi could have posted a danger sign near the place to warn the customers but they did not think of it to and the fatal accident of Tamara was the result for this negligence. Aldi showed sheer negligence to perform their duty of care which was legally imposed on them as per the tort obligations generated by UK legal system.
commercial law assignment help,commercial law assignment sample,commercial law assignment kaplan ,
Related Post
- Communication Styles Differ Culture Assignment Help UK
- Hospitality Management Simulations Assignment Help UK
- Visitor Behavior Management Assignment Help Uk
- New Graduate Application Assignment Help Uk
- Case Study Assignment Help UK
- Taxation Theory Law Assignment Help UK
- Financial Analysis Coca COla Amatil Assignment Help Uk
- Strategic Information Systems Business Assignment Help Uk
- Market structure Absolut vodka Nepal Assignment Help Uk
- Business Scenario Stitches Assignment Help Uk
- New Graduate Application Assignment Help Uk
- Leadership Models Critical Discussion Assignment Help Uk
- Taxation Theory Practice Law Assignment Help Uk
- Corporate Accounting Assignment Help Uk
- Developing Corporate communications Tool Assignment Help Uk
- Strategic Decision Making Health Care Assignment Help Uk
- Mkt 306 Marketing Strategy Assignment Help Uk
- Strategic Information System Assignment Help Uk
- Managerial Accounting Assignment Help Uk
- Database Design Concept Assignment Help Uk
- Advantages Disadvantages Using Social Networks Business Assignment Help Uk
- Visitor Attraction Management Assignment Help Uk
- Business Research Assignment Help Uk
Taxation Law
As per the taxation Laws to Australia, a visitor visiting Australia is liable to pay tax. However, there are certain aspects of that are being checked to ensure the fact that the tax liability being imposed is at par the guidelines of Australian taxation laws.
