Business Contract Law: the case of Choc Delux and Kim
1. Law of Tort
The Law of Tort is considered to be an important aspect as far as consideration for legal and statutory implications are concerned (Schwartz, 2003). The Law of Tort is regarded to be a source of legal references in case any of the parties to a business contract is affected by the wrongful actions of the other (Fleming, 2005).
In the case of a situation whereby an individual, group of individuals, are affected by the action of another individual, group of individuals or an organisation, the stipulations of the Law of Tort help in provision of a remedy to the affected.
1.1 Importance of Law of Tort in Business
In the business, drafting contracts related to all business transactions and affairs is an important matter. The statutes of the Law of Tort in Business are especially relevant because liability is imposed by a court and, it can be imposed without fault regardless of the agreement among parties. As a result, careful consideration of the importance of Law of Tort in business and the subsequent implications are highly important (Lewis et al. 2006).
2. Meaning and Implications of Tort Law
The Law of Tort and it implications in business are highly important in order to prevent lawsuits and legal actions against any business organisation. Unlike in the case of contracts between two individuals, Law of Torts imposes liability on a business organisation directly (Williams and Hepple, 2005).
Law of Tort makes the business organisation directly liable for any problems or wrongs suffered by the client. Detailed attention needs to be provided on the aspects of Duty of Care and Tort of Strict liability, as if an individual is harmed by the actions of business organisation; it might be considered automatically liable for the provision of a remedy to the aggrieved parties.
2.1 Negligence
The aspect of negligence is an important for all business organisations. Business operations for different kinds of establishments involve development of products and services and selling the same to the market, which consists of consumers. Sale of products and services serve to be the basis of exchange of value between consumers and business organisations. Law of Torts indicate that the liability of business organisations are imposable in a court of law, and it makes it highly important for all business organisations to ensure the provision of value for money and prevention of harm of any kind to consumers from the commodities provided (Morgan, 2004).
Failure of any nature to ensure the above mentioned aspects in the provision of goods and services amount to negligence under Law of Tort. It leads to breaching of Duty of Care and Tort of Strict Liability for the concerned business organisation in the case (Donaldson, 2003).
2.2 Tort of Negligence and its relevance to Choc Delux
(1) The box of chocolate that had been sent to Kim and Kanye after their wedding is, in fact, complimentary service provided by choc Delux and there are no indications that Kim and Kanye had been charged money for the same.
(2) Trust is an important factor here in this case and Choc Delux sending the box of chocolates to Kim and Kanye post the wedding is an important point that needs to be taken into consideration.
(3) The damage caused to Kim due to false finger nail is both physical and financial in nature on the part of Kim.
(4) The fact that the substance was found in the box of chocolates provided by Choc Delux highlights a strong case of negligence and breach of duty of care on the part of Choc Delux. In addition to this, Tort of Strict Liability is also evident on the part of Choc Delux (Croyle, 2008).
3. Important factors and legal implications
3.1 Physical harms caused by negligence
Kim had suffered a broken tooth and cuts on her tongue because of the presence of the false finger nail in the price of chocolate she had consumed, making negligence evident on the part of Choc Delux in the preparation of the confectionary item sent to Kim and Kanye post their wedding. It needs to be highlighted that though the item was supposedly sent free of charge, it cannot be regarded that the duty of care was any less (Dewees and Trebilcock, 2002).
Injury had been to tooth and tongue of Kim, and even shock had made her sick. It needs to be highlighted here that since the product was prepared by Choc Delux, the organisation is automatically liable to the physical harm caused (Farber, 2000).
3.2 Financial impact due to negligence
The negligence in the preparation of chocolate confectionary item that was provided to Kim and Kanye has also led to financial losses of £ 10,000 in treatment and repair for a damaged tooth.
Kim and Kanye can file a lawsuit for financial losses against Choc Delux, and the claims will be supported in a court of law due to negligence on the part of Choc Delux (Gilead, 2007).
3.3 Clear evidences of Breach of Duty of Care and Tort of Strict Liability
Being engaged in the business of production and supply of bakery items, it is highly important for Choc Delux to ensure care and responsibility to its patrons. Hygiene and safety of the products prepared by the organisation and provided its patrons highlights adherence to Duty of Care (Lewis et al. 2006). However, presence of a part of false finger nail in the chocolate and subsequent injury suffered by Kim because of it would clearly establish breach of Duty of Care on the part of Choc Delux, should Kim, and Kanye consider filing a lawsuit against the company.
The Tort of Strict Liability is also enforceable as the harm suffered by Kim was reasonable foreseeable had Choc Delux been able to ensure proper hygiene and production standards in the organisation (Caparo Industries PLC V. Dickman 1990 1 All ER 568)
4. Conclusion
The Board of Directors of Choc Delux needs to understand that in this particular case, the aggrieved (Kim and Kanye) have a strong case of negligence against the organisation. If the couple decides on filing a lawsuit against the organisation, it will be evident that Choc Delux is liable for the physical harm and financial losses incurred by Kim.
There are also high chances that the prosecution would be able to establish Breach of Duty of Care and Tort of Strict Liability against the organisation. It would be very hard to counter charges in case they are imposed by Kim and Kanye on the organisation.
References
Croyle, J. L. (2008), ‘Industrial Accident Liability Policy of the Early Twentieth Century’, Journal of Legal Studies, 279-297.
Dewees, D. N. and Trebilcock, M. J. (2002), ‘The Efficacy of the Tort System and its Alternatives: A Review of the Empirical Evidence’, Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 30(1) 57-138.
Donaldson, L. (2003) Making Amends, London: Department of Health
Farber, D. A. (2000), ‘Recurring Misses’, Journal of Legal Studies, 19 727-737.
Fleming, J. G. (2005), An Introduction to the Law of Torts, Clarendon.
Gilead, I. (2007), ‘Tort Law and Internalization: The Gap between Private Loss and Social Cost’, International Review of Law and Economics, 17(2) p.589-608.
Lewis, R., Morris, A. and Oliphant, K. (2006), ‘Tort Personal Injury Claims Statistics: Is There a Compensation Culture in the United Kingdom? 2 JPIL 87.
Morgan, J. (2004) ‘Tort Insurance and Incoherence’, 67(3) MLR 384
Schwartz, D. (2003) The Ethics and the Economics of Tort Liability Insurance, 75 Cornell Law Review 12 (2) p. 313.
Williams, G. L. and Hepple, B. A. (2005), Foundations of the Law of Tort, Butterworths.
