1

Part 1

A tort was defined by Black's law dictionary 1036 (1999) as public or private

misconduct or damage for example evil beliefs and violation of agreements for which

a remedy will be provided by the court through various actions to handle the losses of

the damages. The tort legislation was made to recompense the people and entities for

their material and personal losses that occur due to other people's unfair/illegal

actions.

The 19-year old and the parents are liable for the damage caused to Mr. and

Mrs. Smiths property. According to the tort law, the case is covered under the head of

intentional destruction. The example depicts that deliberate harm is made to the

property of Mr. and Mrs. Smith as children climb their walls and visit their garden

without seeking permission from them. It is also seen that events of the visit to Mr &

Mrs. Smith are multiple that also depicts that they are not mistaken for once instead

going there repeatedly to serve the purpose causing harm to the property. They are

held liable for intentional damage caused to the property of Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

William L. Prosser said in the Law of Torts 31 (4th ed. 1971) that the tort law

does not necessarily make the people accountable for the intent of hostile actions or

for actions that create harm for others. It is concerned with those determinations of the

people who negatively affects the interest of other people but without making them

legally liable.

The intentional tort refers to the identification of the intent of the person for

the specific act so that his liability for the act could be established. The accuser does

not rely on the evidence but on the intention of a person for the creation of the harm

that happens (White v. Muniz, 999 P.2d 814, 819, Colo. 2000; Mooney v. Carter, 160

P.2d 390, Colo. 1945). Identification of the offender had significant intent as he
 2

increased the speed of the vehicle and then diverge it so that he could throw the

plaintiff out of the car.

Possibly one of the traditional intentional torts regarding land area is the

encroachment of the land rights. In legal terms, it is known as trespass that refers to

the situation when a person himself violates the land rights of others or facilitate

someone in doing this (CJI-Civ. 18:1, CLE ed. 2010). The legal owner of the land

property could claim the compensation from the trespass for the physical harm to his

land. When the defendant is initially legally authorized to hold a land property but

later on that right is annulled or ended by the law but the defendant still owns the

property then this action will also consider as an act of trespass (Id., notes on use

(citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 158 (1965)).

Part 2

Under the traditions of the common law, the landlord has no particular

obligations to the trespassers. A trespasser has a responsibility to not make an entry in

the premises of the other person's property, without taking permission. So from the

beginning of this case, the 19-year old was in an incorrect position. When a trespasser

made an unlawful entrance in someone else's property his claims based on equity do

not remain valid, according to the phenomena of unclean hands doctrine i.e., an

individual cannot request the court to make his decision just and right in a case when

the damage occurs only due to the wrongful act of that individual.

But in the case where the claims involved the real injuries and financial losses,

the legal mistakes made by the trespasser could be ignored. In most states, whenever

the trespasser got the injury, the jury try to identify that who is more responsible for

the injury: the trespasser or the landlord (Speiser, Krause and Gans, 2003). In those

states (District of Columbia and 4 states) where the courts apply the doctrine of
 3

contributory negligence, even a small mistake on behalf of the trespasser, which

causes his injury, can become a barrier in the recovery. Provided that the trespasser

made an unlawful entry in someone else's property, his claims for injuries will be

affected because trespassing is illegal in that premises (Speiser, Krause and Gans,

2003). Thus under the law, Mr & Mrs. Smith are not liable for the injuries and other

damage caused to the 19-year old. The child was found using the land without the

permission of the landlord and caused damage by falling into the fishpond that shows

negligence at his end.

Part 3

Mr. Hasrad and his family are committing a civil wrong that is described

under private nuisance in tort law. One must be feeling embarrassed if he or she

bother anyone or do any of such act or for committing any prohibited lapse which is

strictly unlawful regarding any person’s usage or related to property possession and

even rights of his/his property (Wightman, 1998). In Hunter v Canary Wharf, three

major types of a private nuisance were mentioned, which includes; infringement of a

neighbor's property; any of destruction of land that is, intruding in land matters and

authority (Wightman, 1998). The obligation is primarily included in other factors of

disruption to the rights of owners that depends upon the defendant's response towards

differing interests. Moreover, a person who causes any confusion or damage to land

or held responsible for illegal possession of the property will be held accountable to

the damages. It is seen in a case when interference causes significant problems.

Beside infringement of personal land matters, a liable person must be shown

proves of damages which can be palpable or intangible by petitioner which is

considered among the prerequisites (Rychlak, 1989). Hence it is not compulsory to

claim only for substantial reparations to the land. Some other kind of interferences
 4

may also include intangible forms like a bad odor, noise pollution or any other thing

that may directly or indirectly adversely affect the rights of ownership could be the

cause of claim.

Part 4

From ancient times, employers are liable to their employees. At the same time,

from many years they also possess extensive defenses. These defenses were

constricted and somewhat eliminated since the 1940s. Now employers are also liable

for the employees' insurance under the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance)

Act of 1969 (Speiser, Krause and Gans, 2003).

Employees can reasonably expect that their employers will make every possible

effort to guarantee their security. The legislation made on negligence, which is still in

practice, imposed the duty. Employers' commitment could be categorized under the

following categories (McNiece and Thornton, 1948).

 Provision of secure building

 Provision of secure plant

 Provision of a capable workforce

 Provision of the code of conduct to ensure safer working practices

These duties are not different from one another but come under the same head,

i.e., provision of adequate protection to provide the employees with a maximum level

of security. This duty is not dependent on the other legal obligations of the employers.

In case the employer failed to fulfill the requirements of the common law he could

protect himself by claiming that he performs all the functions that the law requires

from him in this regard even if the law also includes the risk submitted by the

applicant (McNiece and Thornton, 1948).

Duty of Care
 5

Under common law, the task of care is transformed into an implicit condition

of the legal contract, and the employer is legally responsible for taking appropriate

measures to guarantee the employees' security; such responsibility is similar to the

duty of care of negligence (Feliu, 1995). Employer’s responsibility of provision of

safety to his employees, as developing in the civil courts, can be traditionally regarded

as mentioned below. In the Wilson & Clyde Coal Co Ltd v English (1938) AC 57, the

Wright in has provided the standard description of the duty. Under this legal case, the

complainant was a digger and was wounded at the coal mine of the defendant. At the

end of his day shift, he was traveling through the mine and was badly injured when

mining equipment was started into work. By rule, the mining instrument should not be

started during the travel period. The employers contended that they had fulfilled their

responsibility regarding the provision of a secure working environment through hiring

the capable and well-educated managerial staff. But the court held the employers

liable for the injury (Wilson's Case, 1938). Employers could not ignore their

responsibly, regarding the provision of safer working arrangements, by assigning their

duty to another capable worker.

The House of Lords has derived three significant points about the duty of care.

These points are as follows: provision of secure instruments and plants, provision of

capable and safety-aware staff and provision of safe working place and systems

(Speiser, Krause and Gans, 2003).

Secure Materials, Plant, and Equipment

Employers should also take adequate steps to provide safer equipment, plant,

and materials to the workers. Further improvements have been made in common law

with the introduction of Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act of 1969

which makes the employer responsible for any defects in the equipment due to the
 6

carelessness of vendors (Feliu, 1995). The term equipment is explained in the law as

any machinery, plant, clothing, aircraft, and vehicle. The employer is responsible for

the provision of the necessary equipment required to conduct his business. The law

covers the broader view and includes all those items that the employee utilized during

his work and not just the instruments used by him.

Knowles v Liverpool City Council (1993) 1 Lloyds Reports 11 HL

Knowles was labor and was responsible for fixing roadways. He was

manhandling a flagstone into the spade of JCB mechanical digger. Knowles became

injured due to the breakage of flagstone. The reason behind that was a small fault in

the production process that remains unrecognizable by the employers of the Knowles

earlier. Thus the law states that as the defect in the flagstone caused the injury, so the

liability lies on the shoulders of the employer. It is also stated that the ship could also

be regarded as defective equipment.

Secure Working Place

To ensure the safety of his employees, an employer should take appropriate

steps regarding the safety of the working place. Lord Wright has not declared this

point in the case Wilson & Clyde Coal, but many legal courts have given their

acceptance to this, for, Lord Greene approved it in the case called Handley v

Davidson (1945) 1 All ER 235, 236 (Fleming, 1967). To determine the scope of this

duty, AEC Ltd v Latimer (1953) 2 All ER 449 could be given due consideration

(Deakin, Morris, and Morris, 2005).

The employer is also responsible for the safety of the third party's working

place no matter what is his level of control over the working area of the third party.

But based on various situations, the efforts need to be taken to fulfill thus duty also

differs (Deakin, Morris, and Morris, 2005).

 7

In this case, the duty of providing secure workplace is applied to the Building

Contractor because they were responsible for assuring that employees are working in

the safe environment.

Square D Ltd v Cook (1992) ICR 262, 268 and 271

According to point 5 of the Workplace (security, healthcare and well- being)

Regulations 1992 (SI 3004) an employer may also owe the duty (Deakin, Morris, and

Morris, 2005). It also makes the employer responsible for the provision of an

appropriate reporting system. In modern times, the scope of this duty could be

expanded to include the potential long-term injuries, for instance, passive smoking.

The law states that it is the right of the employees to get protection from the

workplace, polluted by tobacco. In Morse and Waltons v Dorrington case the court

considers this a right step, but queries are raised regarding the possible extension of

the scope of this duty (Fleming, 1967).

Part 5

A legal contract is established between the two or greater than two parties

when one party made an offer, and the other accepts that offer, and through this, it

became obligatory on them to fulfill all the conditions provided in the contract

(Richards, 2006). The agreement established the duties and privileges of the

contracting parties.

The parties to the legal contract are legally bound to fulfill that contract. If one

party violates the terms of the agreement, the other could claim the damages in the

court of law (Richards, 2006). But before determining the implications of the breach

of contract the court first has to verify the validity, legality, and enforceability of the

agreement.
 8

In the contracting parties, the offeror is the one who established an offer, and

the offeree is the one who agreed/accept the proposed offer of the offeror. Mainly four

elements are essential for the creation of the contract which is: offer submitted by the

offeror, offeree's acceptance to the offeror's proposal, intentions of the contracting

parties to establish legal obligations and the considerations exchanged between the

contracting parties (Richards, 2006).

The Elements Of A Valid Contract

To establish a legal contract, a violation of which could be challenged in a

court of law, the contracting parties have to fulfill specific legal requirements

provided by the law of contract. Although the number of these legal requirements is

not higher, their fulfillment is a prerequisite to create obligations and rights which

could be implemented through the court of law (Richards, 2006). These legal

requirements are also known as the elements of a valid contract and are given below:

1. Offer

Offer refers to the proposal of the offeror to the offeree with the intention to

create legal obligations between the two if the offeree accepts that proposal. The

language of the offer should explain the fact that the offer is legally binding.

For a contract to be valid, the offer should be established in a way that it

clearly distinguishes between the legal offer and an invitation to the treat. A proposal

could create a legally binding contract, but an invitation to the treat is just a request

made for the treatment and thus cannot create a legal agreement (Hart, 2009).

An example of this could be the products displayed in the shop. The products

do not make an offer to the customers but just an invitation to treat. But if the

customer is willing to buy the products, he will make an offer to the cashier for their

purchase. Then the cashier as a representative of the company, to whom the products
 9

belong, decided as to whether to accept or reject the offer. If the cashier agreed to the

proposal of the consumer for the product's purchase, a contract would be established

(Hart, 2009).

Similarly, advertisements are not usually considered an offer but just an

invitation to treat. But in some rare situations, ads can also create an offer from their

actual conditions. But in that case, many elements have to be considered and

evaluated to find out that whether these advertisements have an intention to create an

offer or not.

Before the acceptance of the offer, there is a chance to cancel or reject the

offer at any time. But it is necessary for the offeree to inform the offeror about that

rejection, by himself or through some other trustworthy person (Hart, 2009).

Acceptance

The acceptance of the offer by the offeree is essential for the creation of a

legally binding contract. Approval should be the reflection of them, i.e., it must be

unconditional and unqualified to all the stated condition presented in the offer. If the

proposal is rejected or specific conditions are placed to accept the offer, or some

alteration is made in the offer's terms than that kind of acceptance would not create a

legally valid contract. Instead, it dismisses the proposal. In the case where alteration is

allowed in the offer's terms, it refers to the counter-offer presented for the acceptance

(Schlesinger, 1968). The offeree should inform the offeror about his approval, orally

or through writing. But silence could not be considered as acceptance.

Intention to create legal relations

It must be demonstrated that equitably, the gatherings had the aim to be

lawfully bound by the authoritative terms, being their particular rights and

commitments. All things considered, a mere reaction to an inquiry or a demand for

 10

data would not constitute an aim to go into legitimate relations as these are generally

made with no objective to be lawfully bound (Furmston, MIK, and Tolhurst, 2015).

A representation would be the place party A asked for party B at the most

reduced cost which B will pitch his pen to A. B's response to A showing the most

minimal value he will pitch his pen to A would not constitute an offer as B was only

reacting to A's enquiry on the least cost of the pen.

There is a valid assumption that in business or commercial connections,

parties expect to be legitimately bound when they go into contracts, without an

express proclamation that the gatherings planned something else. Then again,

understandings went into by parties in the household, or social setting is assumed not

to have scheduled for lawful outcomes (Furmston, MIK, and Tolhurst, 2015). In such

circumstance, the Court would require a reasonable explanation that the gatherings

planned to be lawfully bound when going into contracts.

Consideration

The contract must be upheld by thought given in return for a guarantee. The

promisor will ask for an opinion in return for the assurance that the promise is trying

to defend. The idea must be something of significant worth. The estimation of the

thought here, in the legitimate sense, does not expect it to be equivalent or

proportionate with the estimate of the guarantee (Hart, 2009). Something of ostensible

esteem can even constitute adequate thought. The mentality of the Courts is that the

Courts won't effectively find that component of view had not been fulfilled. It is quite

often fulfilled.

Ability to Contract

Not every person is legalized to get into agreements that would tie them by the

law. Some aspects of promisor's utmost are protected as a matter of public strategy,
 11

either because of their ingenuousness and childishness or for the reason of their

powerlessness to signify the idea of their demonstrations in making enforceable

guarantees (Richards, 2006).

 The most obvious category to be safeguarded is the congregation of people of

youthful age termed minors. In common law, a minor is a man younger than

21 years, yet in numerous areas, this has been reduced to 18 or 19 years old by

law (Richards, 2006).

 The courts treat smashed and rationally hindered people similarly as minors as

for their ability to contract. Those people who have been focused on a

psychological organization can't ordinarily acquire any obligation in contract,

and people who experience the ill effects from time to time are liable to

various unique contract rules.

 A partnership is a creature of statute and, all things considered, may have just

those forces that the statute may allow it. Companies shaped under Royal

Charter or letters patent are for the most part considered to have every one of

the forces to get that a characteristic individual may have.

 A treaty that a labor union consults with an employer would not regularly be

enforceable, not for particular enactment representing its transaction and

requirement (Richards, 2006).

 A man who has been pronounced bankrupt has a restricted ability to contract.

Until the point when a bankrupt individual gets a release, he or she may not go

into any agreement aside from necessaries.

Part 6

Contract terms can be separated into:

 Express Terms
 12

 Implied Terms

Express Terms

An express term is a word conceded to by the congregations to the treaty, however

I) Verbal contracts - the occurrence of a detailed term consists of Proof (Manesh,

2013).

II) Composed contracts- the words in the contract are the expressions of the contract.

The agreement may likewise incorporate the terms by following references, that a

definite set of standard settings apply and bring together those settings to form an

agreement (Manesh, 2013).

III) Contracts mostly in composed form or oral - an issue as it is a matter of concern

that a verbal thing is a part of the agreement or not.

For the most part, it will be accepted, in business, the composed contracts are

the agreement to the prohibition of oral terms except if the gathering asserting the

verbal part can indicate its vitality to the deal that it must be incorporated.

SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v Ardennes (Owners) [1950] 2 All ER 517

The offended parties were cultivators of mangoes in Spain, the respondents

were ship-owners. A payload of mangoes was delivered to the litigant's vessel, for the

quality of a "verbal guarantee" that the vessel will be straightforwardly delivered to

England to touch base by 01.12.47, however, they went by means of Antwerp but

couldn't land until the fourth Dec.

The Bill of Lading contained a condition enabling the transporter to continue "by any

course and whether specifically or by implication"

Held – It was an express verbal guarantee that mastered the expressions in the Bill of

Replenishing

Generally, thing is to be dealt with in the form of portrayal more of which later.
 13

Implied Terms

An implied term is a term that isn't explicitly in the agreement, however, is

embedded by statute, custom or by the courts.

1. Statute

An Act of Parliament expresses that the term is incorporated, for instance: The

Sale of Goods Act 1979(as corrected by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994)

infers terms as to tasteful quality, wellness for reason and proprietorship of the

products into contracts for the offer of merchandise (Cohen, 2000).

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 suggests a fitness for sailing term into

contracts for marine protection. A portion of these terms might be avoided by

particular arrangements in the agreement; some may not, either due to the Act itself or

some other enactment (for illustration the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

(Richards, 2006).

2. Custom

These terms are ordinarily those inside specific exchanges and are suggested

as it is expected that those inside the exchange plan the standard term to be

incorporated except if they bar it (Goetz and Scott, 1985).

British Crane Hire Corp. Ltd. v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd. [1975] QB 303

D procured a dragline crane from P on the quality of an agreement made by

phone, with the documentation to be sent on later. The states of exchange these

archives incorporated an endeavor that D would reimburse P for any harm. Prior to

the archives to be marked, the crane (without blame by anybody) sank in damp

ground and P guaranteed the repayment.

Seized - The Law court of Plea enabled the statement to remain as a component of the

agreement; in spite of the fact that it had not explicitly been attracted to D's
 14

consideration at the season of the verbal contract, and there was no normal course of

managing between the parties, both were individuals from an exchange affiliation and

ordinarily utilized their standard conditions (counting a term, for example, this), and

both would have expected that a few conditions were to be connected.

3. Courts

The courts will be ease back to suggest terms into an agreement that has not

been embedded by the gatherings as they are taken to have known their own

personalities rather than the court.

The test is that of "business adequacy".

The Moorcock [1889] 14 PD 64

The respondents were the proprietors of a wharf and concurred that it ought to

be utilized by the Plaintiffs send for stacking freight. The ship grounded and was

harmed in light of the state of the waterway bed, which was not under the

respondent's control (Peters, 2009).

Held - The court said the respondents were subject for this harm; it was an inferred

term that they had found a way to guarantee the river bed nearby their wharf was

sheltered.

References

Black, H. C., Garner, B. A., & McDaniel, B. R. (1999). Black's law dictionary (Vol.

196). St. Paul, MN: West Group.

British Crane Hire Corporation Ltd v. Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd, 1974 All E.R.1 1059

(1974).

Cohen, G. M. (2000). Implied terms and interpretation in contract law. Encyclopedia

of Law and Economics, 3, 78-99.

Davidson v. Handley Page, Ltd., 61 T.L.R. 178 (1945).

 15

Deakin, S. F., Morris, G. S., & Morris, G. S. (2005). Labour law(p. 386). Oxford:

Hart Publishing.

Feliu, A. G. (1995). WORKPLACE VIOLENCE AND THE DUTY OF CARE-THE

SCOPE OF AN EMPLOYERS OBLIGATION TO PROTECT AGAINST

THE VIOLENT EMPLOYEE. Employee Relations Law Journal, 20(3), 381-

406.

Fleming, J. G. (1967). The role of negligence in modern tort law. Virginia law review,

815-846.

Furmston, M., MIK, E., & Tolhurst, G. J. (2015). Formation of Contracts. Common

Law Series: The Law of Contract, 5th edn. London: LexisNexis.

Goetz, C. J., & Scott, R. E. (1985). The limits of expanded choice: An analysis of the

interactions between express and implied contract terms. Calif. L. Rev., 73,

261.

Hart, D. K. (2009). Contract Formation and the Entrenchment of Power. Loy. U. Chi.

LJ, 41, 175.

Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd, 1997 A.C. 655 (1997).

Knowles v. Liverpool City Council, 1993 W.L.R.1 1428, 1993 All E.R.4 321 (1993).

Latimer v. AEC Ltd, 1953 A.C. 643 (1953).

Manesh, M. (2013). Express Contract Terms and the Implied Contractual Covenant of

Delaware Law. Del. J. Corp. L., 38, 1.

McNiece, H. F., & Thornton, J. V. (1948). Affirmative Duties in Tort. Yale LJ, 58,

1272.

Peters, C. (2009). The implication of terms in fact. The Cambridge Law

Journal, 68(3), 513-515.

Proprietors of Charles River Bridge v. Proprietors of Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420, 9

 16

L. Ed. 773 (1837).

Prosser, W. L. (1971). Law of torts.

Richards, P. (2006). Law of contract. Pearson Education.

Rychlak, R. J. (1989). Common-Law Remedies for Environmental Wrongs: The Role

of Private Nuisance. Miss. LJ, 59, 657.

Schlesinger, R. B. (1968). Formation of contracts: A study of the common core of

legal systems.

Speiser, S. M., Krause, C. F., & Gans, A. W. (2003). The American law of torts (Vol.

1). Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co.

SS Ardennes (Cargo Owners) v. SS Ardennes (Owners), 1951 K.B.1 55 (1951).

Stewart v. Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co., 5 F. 120 (1902).

White, G. E. (2003). Tort law in America: An intellectual history. Oxford University

Press, USA.

Wightman, J. (1998). Nuisance—the Environmental Tort? Hunter v Canary Wharf in

the House of Lords. The Modern Law Review, 61(6), 870-885.

Wilson's Case, 1938 A.C. 57 (1938).