In this report I’ll provide research and detailed answers to all the queries you’ve for me. Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. (Robertson, 2002). I’ll use reliable references, case law examples and legislation to support my work and provide you with legitimate research. I’ll be talking about the three events that’ve occurred at the Grove Theatre in Salford. In Contract Law I’ll be talking about the variance between an offer and invitation to treat, and the variance between condition and warranty. In Tort Law I’ll be talking about vicarious liability and seeing if this applies to Wicked Theatres Group Ltd. Finally in Employment Law I’ll be talking about employee status and …show more content…
Invitation to treat is when something is advertised in a newspaper or on a poster, this’ll not normally constitute an offer but will instead be an invitation to treat, an indication that one or both parties are prepared to negotiate a deal, as was the case in Harris v Nickerson (1873).
In the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke ball Company (1893) Carbolic Smoke ball Company, a medical firm advertised a smoke ball which according to the advertisement would make you immune from catching influenza. If a buyer got influenza the company would give the buyer a £100 reward.
Carlill used the smoke ball as instructed and caught influenza two months later, Carlill therefore brought the claim to court. The lawyers representing Carlill claimed that the poster and Carlill’s confidence it was a contract among Carlill and the company, so they’ve to pay. The company argued it wasn’t a serious legally binding offer, claiming it was a …show more content…
(ACAS, 2012). It’s the liability of an employer for the acts of an employee in breach of the tort of negligence.
To establish vicarious liability the two stage test will be used; tort committed by an employee and act in course of employment.
The first stage of the test must establish if the offender is an employee, this employee must’ve committed a tort, and the tort must’ve been committed during employment. To identify if an individual is an employee, it’ll depend on various aspects such as the amount of control over the individual, an economic reality test and if work is being provided in return for wage. Courts find it problematic in what institutes the classification of an employee, this is due to there being many different employment relationships. (Tort Vicarious Liability, 2013).
Act in course of employment is establishing if the employee was impliedly authorised to do something. So this could be a wrongful act authorised by the employer, or the employee may’ve committed the authorised act in an unauthorised way. Courts also find that this test only covers the careless acts of the employee, and not the intentional