TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Table of cases
2. Part 1 – Question 1
 Sub-part A
i. Issue
ii. Rule
iii. Application
iv. Conclusion
 Sub-Part B
i. Issue
ii. Rule
iii. Application
iv. Conclusion
 Sub-Part C
i. Issue
ii. Rule
iii. Application
iv. Conclusion
3. Part 2 – Question 2
i. Issue
ii. Rule
iii. Application
iv. Conclusion
4. Part 3 – Question 3
 Introduction
 Main Characteristics’
5. References
TABLE OF CASES

AB v Main, [2015] EWHC 3183 (QB). ........................................................................................... 8

Anthony Murray v. McKeown Fine Foods Ltd, [2019] NIIT 05657 17IT ...................................... 4
Balfour v. Balfour, [1919] 2 KB 571 .............................................................................................. 3
Barness v Ingenious Media Ltd, [2019] EWHC 3299 (Ch) ............................................................ 7
Carlyle (Appellant) v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Respondent) (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 13 ..... 4
Chester v Afshar, [2004] UKHL 41 ................................................................................................ 8
Dodd v Raeburn Estates Ltd, [2017] EWCA Civ 439, [2017] 2 P. & C.R. 14 ............................... 8
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, HL.................................................................................... 7
Jaguar Cars Limited v. Coates, [2004] EWCA Civ 337 ................................................................ 9
Johnston v Nei International Combustion Ltd, [2007] UKHL 39 .................................................. 8
New York Laser Clinic Limited v Naturastudios Limited, [2019] EWHC 2892 (QB) ................... 5
Nugent -v- Fogarty, [2015] IEHC 523 ............................................................................................ 8
Pettitt v. Pettitt [1969] 2 W.L.R. 966, 983 ...................................................................................... 4
Smoldon v Whitworth & Nolan [1997] PIQR P133, CA ................................................................ 7
Wells v Devani, [2019] UKSC 4 .................................................................................................... 6
WPM Retail Ltd v Lang, [1978] ICR 787. ...................................................................................... 5
PART 1

A.

ISSUE

 Whether the promise made by Sergio to his son can be considered as binding or not?

RULE

 Promise made to create legal relationship and have some sought of consideration offered
are legally binding even in social contracts.

APPLICATION

 In such cases when a promise is made the concept of promissory estoppel is used and for
the same Lord Denning have states a promise to be binding one when the promise is for
acceptance of some smaller sum in discharge of larger sum, if acted upon is a valid one,
even if consideration was absent in this context.1
 Similarly if the promise is made in commercial context it will act as a binding promise as
by offering some sought of monetary supplement party intended to enter into legal
relationship.
 Thus a promise must be considered as legally binding if some monetary supplements are
involved and the expectation of the promisee is in ordinary course is reasonable
expectation.2
 And the issue of contract between family members is well settled from the opinion averted
in case of Balfour v. Balfour3 that if the parties intended to legally enter into a contract then
the point they are family members is irrelevant. Similarly parties must intended to enter

1
JOHN C. FISHER, CONTRACT LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES (2018).
2
EWAN MCENDRICK, CONTRACT LAW: TEXT, CASES & MATERIALS, 235 (2018).
3
Balfour v. Balfour, [1919] 2 KB 571
 into legal obligation.4 Promises which are clear and made with unambiguous words are
legally binding.5
 On the legal point of contracts between family members it is well settled that family
members can enter into legal obligations.6
 Another point is in the present situation the father’s intention and reasonable expectation
is to make his son quit the job of chef and qualify as solicitor. In this case if the Sergio’s
Son quit his job and qualify as a solicitor he would be able to enforce this promise as a
binding one as voluntarily abstaining from something for future benefit is a valid
consideration.

CONCLUSION

 In this case Sergio’s promise is an offer to his son to quit the job of chef. By involving
monetary supplement he intended to enter into legal obligation. Hence the promise made
is legally binding if acted upon by his son.

B.

ISSUE

 Whether the promise by Sergio to his Secretary to do extra work is legally binding or not?

RULE

 Promise in commercial context and in employment is legally binding as it is made for some
kind of consideration.

APPLICATION

 Promises made especially in employment are of immense value as no employer would

made a promise in work without any intention to create legal obligation.

4
Anthony Murray v. McKeown Fine Foods Ltd, [2019] NIIT 05657 17IT.
5
Carlyle (Appellant) v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc (Respondent) (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 13.
6
Pettitt v. Pettitt [1969] 2 W.L.R. 966, 983
  Thus in employment promise or offer for extra pay for extra work clearly shows the
intention of offeree to enter into legal obligation.7
 Similarly promise with intent and consideration are legally binding upon parties.
 WPM Retail Ltd v Lang8 is related to the bonus which have to be given to the employee,
and the employer is under the obligation to pay the same. This made the present situation
at hand to be enforceable promise.
 Similarly intention to create contract can also be taken from email’s 9 and in the present
situation through verbal communication Sergio’s intention can also be
 Consideration can be anything and in such a situation for Liam the extra pay is
consideration and for Sergio the extra work he got is his consideration.10

CONCLUSION

In this situation the promise is binding as in employment if any promise related to work is made
within reasonable limits it is considered as binding one. Thus Sergio have to pay his Secretary
extra money if she accept the offer and work in the lunch hour.

C.

ISSUE

 Whether the words of Mr. Sergio to pay Natasha 10 euro if she will be able to deliver
newspaper till 8 A.M. is a mere statement or a binding promise?

RULE

 Promise with consideration are legally binding and offers made with consideration and
benefit for both the parties must be treated as binding offer.

7
HUGH BEALE, BÉNÉDICTE FAUVARQUE-COSSON, JACOBIEN RUTGERS, STEFAN VOGENAUER, CASES, MATERIAL AND
TEXT ON CONTRACT LAW (2019).
8
WPM Retail Ltd v Lang, [1978] ICR 787.
9
New York Laser Clinic Limited v Naturastudios Limited, [2019] EWHC 2892 (QB)

10
PAUL S. DAVIS, JC SMITH’S THE LAW OF CONTRACT (2018).
APPLICATION

 Promises made with consideration are considered as legally binding, and thus if in the offer
itself it is clearly visible that both the parties could get benefit from the same it is considered
as a binding one.
 So if in the offer the promisee is also getting benefit from the same then a general
presumption has to be taken that he intended to enter into legal obligation.11
 The benefit which he was going to take from the promise itself shows that he intended to
for legal obligation and thus formal requirement from his side would stand complete to
make the promise legally binding. Intention to enter into legal obligation can be determined
from conduct of parties.12

CONCLUSION

In this situation the promise is legally binding as he himself get benefit from the contract if
performed by Natasha. Thus if Natasha accept such promise she would be entitled to get 10 euro
from Sergio.

PART 2

ISSUE

 Whether the bank Extortionate PLC would be liable for Negligence?

RULE

 For Proving the claim of Negligence all the essential elements of Negligence is needed to
be present. Negligence is committing or omitting from something without taking
reasonable care, resulting in injuries to the other party.

APPLICATION

11
Ji Lian Yap, Balancing competing policy goals in the implication of terms for the completion of contracts, 31
ICCLR, 81-88 (2020).
12
Wells v Devani, [2019] UKSC 4.
  Generally in law of torts when the party owning duty of care towards the plaintiff fails to
take all reasonable care to avoid injuries to the plaintiff, then the party would be liable for
Negligence.13
 Thus Negligence is an act or failure to take due care resulting in injuries to the plaintiff.
Hence to win a claim of Negligence three essentials need to be prove by the plaintiff. Three
essentials are, duty of care, breach of duty and damages.

Duty of Care14

 This is the first essential need to be assessed and proved to bring a claim of negligence.15
 Duty of care means the defendant owns a duty to take all reasonable measures to protect
the plaintiff from the injuries that can happen in the ordinary course.16
 Thus, this duty is considered as a legal as well as moral duty of person, to perform act or
to abstain from doing such acts which must not cause in damage to the other party. 17 To
establish a duty it is a two stage process. Firstly the proximate relationship between the
person from whose fault the injury is caused to the other person.
 Secondly, the defendant have taken all reasonable care and due to some policy reasons he
was not likely to get involved with the work.
 Thus in the present situation the Bank is aware of the carpet wrongly placed over the stairs
causing many people to get slipped of the same, ultimately causing injuries to the person
who are mostly customers of the bank.
 As a customers to the bank, the duty of care is established as they have to take all reasonable
measures to protect the customers in the premises of the bank. Hence the Duty is
established as customers are having special relationship with the Bank.

13
14
Barness v Ingenious Media Ltd, [2019] EWHC 3299 (Ch)

15
JAMES PLUNKETT, THE DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE (2018).
16
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, HL
17
Smoldon v Whitworth & Nolan [1997] PIQR P133, CA
Breach of Duty18

 The second element is breach of duty, in which it has to be assessed that whether the
defendant have taken all the standards to prevent the reasonably foreseeable situation. If
the standards are not proper or if the defendant while knowing that the particular thing
needs some time and consideration to prevent risk for other and abstain from doing so.
 Thus in such scenario where the defendant do no properly take measures to prevent the risk
over a premise or anything would stands for breach of duty. There is an objective test for
the reasonable foreseeability, like in ordinary course the act or omission is likely to cause
damage to any person.
 In the present situation after complaint of many customers still the bank officials have not
taken measures to place the carpet over the stairs of the bank correctly would amount to
abstaining from taking all reasonable care. Hence they have breached the duty of care
owned.

Damage19

 It is essential to prove that the breach of duty resulted in damages to the plaintiff. If plaintiff
fails in proving that he suffered any loss from the breach of duty of the defendant, the claim
of plaintiff would stands negated.20 Only in special cases like when the doctor have to tell
about the risk of operation or surgery to the patient this rule finds its exception.21
 Dodd v Raeburn Estates Ltd,22 is the case where the premise holder was unable to maintain
the stairs and the court held him responsible extending the liability to the Defective
Premises Act 1972. Similarly in some circumstance court’s decision of not maintaining a

18
Nugent -v- Fogarty, [2015] IEHC 523.
19
AB v Main, [2015] EWHC 3183 (QB).
20
Johnston v Nei International Combustion Ltd, [2007] UKHL 39.
21
Chester v Afshar, [2004] UKHL 41.
22
Dodd v Raeburn Estates Ltd, [2017] EWCA Civ 439, [2017] 2 P. & C.R. 14.
 handrail found to be rejected as the appellate court said that handrail is not necessary to
prevent the injury.23
 Thus in the present situation at hand Samantha had received injuries when she fall down
due the carpet wrongly place over the stairs. Thus the proximate cause of her injury is the
carpet over the stairs. Hence this essential is also fulfilled to succeed in the claim of
negligence.

CONCLUSION

In this situation all the essential ingredients of Negligence has been fulfilled, hence if Samantha
brings a claim of negligence she will succeed.

Part 3

INTRODUCTIONS

In Simple word Artificial Person is an entity created by law having same legal rights and duties as
of a Natural person and distinct from the individuals who came together for the inception of such
Artificial Legal Entity.24 And in legal terms some individuals with a common objective came
together to form one separate legal entity through complying with the laws of the particular
jurisdiction. Corporations are a prime example of artificial person. Corporations are generally
defined as companies registered under laws of particular jurisdiction. Corporation is a juridical
legal person and it should be treated as separate legal person. No person can claim to be the owner
of a corporation; corporation is a legal person so no person can own another person. As a
corporation, being a separate legal person, is separate from its members and shareholders so the
shareholders of a corporation can become employees of that corporation and can get wide range
benefits from that corporation in the shape of retirement plans, tax free medical benefits, meal, life
insurance and many other benefits offered by the corporation to their employees. 25 Thus

23
Jaguar Cars Limited v. Coates, [2004] EWCA Civ 337
24
ALEXIS MAVRIKAKIS, BUSINESS LAW (2018).
25
M. Waqas, & Z. Rehman, Separate Legal Entity of Corporation: The Corporate Veil. 3 IJSSM, 1-4. (2016).
corporations are created by individuals for doing business and minimizing the risk involved in
business.

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF ARTIFICIAL PERSONALITY

 Separate Legal Entity – laws for artificial personality provides a separate legal entity for
the artificial person as compared to members of the same artificial person. Similarly the
artificial person is different and distinct from the members of it. It enjoy different rights
and have legal duties just like of an Individual. The actions of an artificial person are
separated from those of its members. An artificial personality run the business through
representatives and agents and transactions made by any of the members of the company
will be treated as the actions of the company. So it has contractual capacity and it can enter
into contract with any person or entity, in case of any violation in terms of the contract,
either party can approach the court in such cases, so it can sue and be sued. Company
members cannot claim company’s claim their own as a corporation is a separate legal
entity.26 Thus it can purchase assets in its own name, can borrow loan, can have its bank
account etc.
 Perpetual Succession – an artificial person does not cease to exist until it is wound up by
the laws of particular jurisdiction. The death or insolvency of members of the artificial
person does not affect the existence of the artificial person.
 Limited Liability – the liability of members of the company is limited to the extent they
own managing affairs of the same. likewise the person liability for the board of
management of corporation cannot

26
[2018] EWCA Civ 1163
REFERENCES

Books

ALEXIS MAVRIKAKIS, BUSINESS LAW (2018). ................................................................................. 9

EWAN MCENDRICK, CONTRACT LAW: TEXT, CASES & MATERIALS, 235 (2018). ........................... 3
HUGH BEALE, BÉNÉDICTE FAUVARQUE-COSSON, JACOBIEN RUTGERS, STEFAN VOGENAUER,
CASES, MATERIAL AND TEXT ON CONTRACT LAW (2019). .......................................................... 5
JAMES PLUNKETT, THE DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE (2018) ...................................................... 7
JOHN C. FISHER, CONTRACT LAW IN ENGLAND AND WALES (2018). .............................................. 3
PAUL S. DAVIS, JC SMITH’S THE LAW OF CONTRACT (2018). ......................................................... 5

Articles
Ji Lian Yap, Balancing competing policy goals in the implication of terms for the completion of
contracts, 31 ICCLR, 81-88 (2020). ........................................................................................... 6
M. Waqas, & Z. Rehman, Separate Legal Entity of Corporation: The Corporate Veil. 3 IJSSM,
1-4. (2016). .................................................................................................................................. 9