Business and Corporate Law
This paper offers responses to three assignment questions relating to business and corporate law provided
Contract law forbids acceptance of partial payments as full settlement of due consideration from a creditor or a debtor. This rule was established in Cole vs Pinnel ruling where it was established that partial payment of a debt cannot be accepted as a settlement for entire debt (Turner, 2013). However, there are exceptions to the rule in the event where payment is done at an earlier date and in a different form or place.
The three exceptions however do not apply to the Edward and Jane case as $ 10,000 payment was made after the due date, in cash and at the same place where lending was done. Even so, ‘promissory estoppel’ rule offers extra exceptional situations where partial payments can be accepted for full payment. It states that if the creditor does not exercise his or her full rights over the debt and the debtor banks on the promise made and acts on it, the creditor is stopped from making claims for his full payment due in the future (Turner, 2013).
For this exception to be applicable the two parties must have entered in contractual relationship and the debtor must have trusted the creditors promise to waive the balance based on his conduct in the future. Edward and Jane as it is evident from the scenario made an oral contract.
Late on, Edward accepted a settlement of $10, 000 when he signed the deal on paper. Jane, his wife, banked on the written promise in her conduct that was when she obtained a bank loan. Because of the promissory estoppel rule, Edward is forbidden from making a claim of $30,000 balance and Jane doesn’t owe him anything, their marriage notwithstanding.
According to Brown and Fleishman (2007), negligence includes four elements that must be satisfied before successful claims damages are made by a plaintiff. First, the defendant must be indebted to duty care of the plaintiff. Secondly, breach of the duty of care must be present, meaning; he must have failed to fulfill his duty care role to the plaintiff. Thirdly, the breach must have in a way caused harm to the plaintiff. Lastly, the court of law must determine damages as compensation for harm done.
Under the act, the building occupier should be able to ensure safety of all visitors at all times. The store breached the duty when spilled grapes were left dangerously on the floor. The spill made Jean break his ankle. Jean can therefore sue to be compensated for the damages, thus the supermarket is responsible for negligence.
The website of Product Safety Australia states that Australian Consumer Law empowers consumers sue manufactures and seek compensation for any losses incurred. Under the act, ‘‘loss or damage’’ is explained as physical injury, economic loss on other assets or death of a person. Actually, Bob suffered physical harm when he contracted skin disease following contact with a chemical used in cloth manufacturing.
Bob, under ordinary circumstances found out that the jumper contained hazardous chemicals and as a result, he could not assume the risk voluntarily. Bon can also sue Southern Knitting Mills for compensation for injuries caused to his skin as the court determined.
This paper has given solutions to three case research studies queries offered in the assignment using ideal legal principles drawn from the common law and Australian statutes.
Brown, J. J., Fleishman, W (2007) Damage Claims: A Fifty-state Guide. New York. NY:
Wolters Kluwer Law & Business. Retrieved on 17 January 2014, from
Product Safety Australia (n.d.) Product liability. Retrieved on 17 January 2014 from;
Turner, C. (2013) Key Facts Contract Law, New York, NY: Routledge Publishers. Retrieved
on 17 January 2014 from;