Question 1
Silence cannot be considered a form of acceptance in contract law, in Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), after small negotiations over a horse, the claimant was willing and offered to buy the horse from the nephew. The claimant wrote, “If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30.15s” (Duxbury, 2008). The horse was said to be withdrawn from the auction but 6 weeks down the line Bindley, the defendant, accidentally sold the horse at the auction; then the claim was formed. The court agreed that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as the contract was never accepted, therefore no actual contract was formed. Although the nephew may have had interest in selling the horse to his uncle, he didn’t communicate it so it …show more content…
When deciding on the standard expected you need to weigh up factors such as the characteristics of the defendant and previous the claimant, the size of the risk, the practicality of preventing the risk and any potential benefits towards society from the activity which caused the risk.
The special characteristics of the claimant come from the case Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951). The claimant was employed by the defendants in a garage. He had a pervious injury in one eye at work which led him to be blind in that one eye. When welding at work a piece of metal flew into his good eye as he was not provided with goggles or any other PPE. There was a breach of duty, the employer should’ve provided the PPE because the harm that would’ve been caused greater than that if he had sight in both of his eyes. The duty is owed to the particular person and not to the reasonable worker.
Examples of a breach of a duty of care would be injury or damage to the building or client or there could be a duty of care breached on site if a worker is injured for not following the training or not wearing
Silence cannot be considered a form of acceptance in contract law, in Felthouse v. Bindley (1862), after small negotiations over a horse, the claimant was willing and offered to buy the horse from the nephew. The claimant wrote, “If I hear no more about him, I consider the horse mine at £30.15s” (Duxbury, 2008). The horse was said to be withdrawn from the auction but 6 weeks down the line Bindley, the defendant, accidentally sold the horse at the auction; then the claim was formed. The court agreed that Felthouse did not have ownership of the horse as the contract was never accepted, therefore no actual contract was formed. Although the nephew may have had interest in selling the horse to his uncle, he didn’t communicate it so it …show more content…
When deciding on the standard expected you need to weigh up factors such as the characteristics of the defendant and previous the claimant, the size of the risk, the practicality of preventing the risk and any potential benefits towards society from the activity which caused the risk.
The special characteristics of the claimant come from the case Paris v. Stepney Borough Council (1951). The claimant was employed by the defendants in a garage. He had a pervious injury in one eye at work which led him to be blind in that one eye. When welding at work a piece of metal flew into his good eye as he was not provided with goggles or any other PPE. There was a breach of duty, the employer should’ve provided the PPE because the harm that would’ve been caused greater than that if he had sight in both of his eyes. The duty is owed to the particular person and not to the reasonable worker.
Examples of a breach of a duty of care would be injury or damage to the building or client or there could be a duty of care breached on site if a worker is injured for not following the training or not wearing