Answer 1:

To prove that some is responsible for an act that has caused harm or injury entitled to be
subjected to the Tort of negligence and claim the awards as composition/. As per Hofstra law
reviews, the Tort of negligence can also be implemented only if a breach of duty and standard
of care exists.
A duty of care must be established where the person holds responsibility for taking care that
no harm is hitched to another member. A standard of care needs to be established to ensure
that the person holds standard care towards the injured or harmed party. To sue in negligence,
haem as the consequence of the other person's physical actions needs to be established.
In the first question, the case established is where Luna has been invited to Jack house where
it was dark and no light inside or outside the home either than a dim light on the opposite side
of the road. Jack had performed hosing of walls, and the steps to the house had become wet.
When Luna entered the hone, she had outstretched arms to the glass bottom and had artery
damage. Moreover, she had consumed alcohol before coming to the house for dinner. In this
case, her prospects of success in actions against Jack fir tort of negligence is considered. In
this case, Jack is the hist and has a standard of care and duty of care established towards
taking care of the guests. He invited Luna for dinner and must ensure that the three premises
do not have any dangerous conditions that can breach the guests' legal duty.
A similar case that can be taken fur reference is the Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India. In this
case, the authorities at the post office could not maintain good conditions, and the defendant
had to sustain injures as a result of this. The postal authorities were held accountable and
liable to pay compensation. They had a duty of care towards the guests they had coming and
the standard of care they failed to abide by, resulting in injury.
Similarly, in this case, Luna can hold compensations for the surgery she had to undergo as a
result of the severe injuries she faced while entering Jack =house for dinner. Jack had invited
Luna for dinner, and it was the duty to ensure that the house was well-lighted and steps clean
to prevent any falls. Even though Luna had red wine and lemonade before coming, there were
no signs of toxicity in her. She was in complete senses, and Jack act of making the steps wet
added to the danger. Hence, Luna can attain success in Tort of negligence against Jack for the
falls and injuries. Jack as the host, did not make any arrangement for the safety of his guests.

Answer 2
The law of contract is the study of legal principles which underlie all contracts, and it is not
concerned with particular types of contracts and their specialized rules
a
The law of contract determines that the contracts are not legally binding at times. In this case,
also, there is no legal binding of Ricky and Punto. No legal contract existed between Ricky
and Punto where it is clear that even in the ‘Peerless horse; did not win the race, Ricky cannot
attain any action against Pinto as no formal legally binding contract exists between them.

b.
There is a legal contract made between Zilla and Rock Castle Pty Ltd. Zilla has paid an
amount to Rick Castle Pty Ltd. to hold the wedding and paid a certain amount for the
booking. Rick Castle booked two bookings simultaneously, and they conveyed the booking
one week before her wedding. Hence refereeing to the principles of contract law, Zilla can
obtain action and attain compensation and refund of her amount from Rick Castle. The
Bilateral contract existed where Rick Castle had the duty to give the venue and perform
preparations as per Zilla needs, and Zilla paid the amount for the booking. In this case, the
offeror Rick Castle promises to perform the act and Zilla makes a payment for it. Rick Castle
has breached the contract by cancelling Zilla booking and paying compensation for the
contract law breach.

c.

Nick negotiated with Roger to build a tennis centre on the old clubhouse building by
demolishing it.
In the basis of verbal talks, the work of demolition started, and by the time Roger started
building the clubhouse for tennis, Nick denied the contract saying he had changed his mind.
Roger cannot have any action against Nick in this case as the legal binding contract never
existed between the two parties.
The verbal contract is viable in the courts only if the parties can prove it effectively with the
evidence at the court. If Roger can provide the verbal contract in the court, he can attain
compensation for the entire demolition of the clubhouse and new building of tennis centre.
However, if it cannot be proved, the entire act will be void, and Roger cannot take any action.
The common law also has parties agreeing to pay liquidation damages in the event of any
breach of contract, and no such contract or agreement was made between Nick and Roger
under common general contract law. Hence, though the action against roger so possible from
Nick on the basis of verbal contract, solid evidence to prove them infirm of witness or
documentation of any sort is required to attain the remedial compensation.