College: Gulf College- Muscat-Sultanate of Oman
Module Code: GHL5006
Module Title: Business Obligaions
Case1: Contract Between Taha and Abdulazlz
A contract was made between Abdulaziz and Taha. Abdulaziz is obliged to deliver 1000 kilograms ofbimported fresh meat from New Zeeland to Taha's meat shop. One day, the Ministry of Health of Oman announces that all imported fresh meats are banned due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease abroad until further notice. Taha believed that based on the law of contract of sale of goods, Abdulaziz is comitted for breach of contract. What advice can you give to Taha?
1) Understand the facts in the case problem and identify the legal issue involved in the case.
2) Analyse each issue in relation to the relevant rules or laws.
Case2: Abdullah Trip Business
Abdullah owns a one man business organising guided outward bound trips in Muscat. A trip will invole hiking and foraging. Abdullah for herself and Dawood, her twin brother, as a joint birthday celebration. The trip was scheduled for late Jaunary.
In order to run a business venture while accomplishing all the absolute objectives of the immediate project, the management is somewhat obliged to exhibit compliance towards certain legal considerations. Furthermore, the management of the business unit is also liable to respond in front of the relevant legal house regarding any act, which is a sheer violation of some of the protocols, that the business is bound to conform.
Explanation of Business Contract
Typically, a business contract refers to a agreement where the participants of the respective contract is bound by certain obligations which is legally enforceable. There exist several sorts of contracts such as Unilateral and Bilateral contract (Oswald, 2014). The governing synergy the Unilateral agreements typically dispense is one of the participants is supposed to pay the counterpart in return of the promised performances. On the other hand, a bilateral contract exhibits a distinct synergy among the participants where promise of a performance has been accepted against another promise of equivalent performance (Kraakman, 2017). These legal obligations associated with a business contract are supposed to provide remedies if there is an underlying act of gross violation of some of the terms. These remedies are destined to restore the victim of the respective breach to their prevalent designation while penalizing the party, which has committed the act of breaching.
The evolution of a traditional business contract is usually comprised of certain phases, which are classified as;
The violation of the contract is typically considered as the inability to retain the proclaimed standards of the performances agreed upon. From a legal perspective, it can be stated that, agreements are conventionally advocated by the judge-made common laws, private laws and state statutory (Stemler, 2013). Private laws are designed to endow the participants of the respective contract to override several formal nuances of the agreement intensive to state laws and restricted its expertise within the premises of terms and conditions of the respective agreement. Most of the states have adopted the Uniform Commercial Code, which is supposed to monitor several specific categories of the agreement such as evaluating the sales performance and ensuring secure transactions (Crane, 2016). The federal laws, sometimes considered synonymous to state laws, have advocated certain industry related activities.
Explanation of Business Tort
Any case of civil wrong that caters the injury or other harms subjected towards the property or any of the participants of a business contract can be considered as Tort. Any victim of Tort is allowed to plea for civil actions regarding the injury or harm occurred where the victim of Tort is extensively considered as plaintiff whereas the party who has committed the civil wrong is considered to be the defendant or the tortfeasor. Since torts are the chiefly committed within an encounter characterized by private parties, instead of charging a substantial financial penalty from the tortfeasor, the relevant legal institutions are supposed to restore the plaintiff with a substantial monetary facility (Oswald, 2014).
In terms of classification, there exist three types of business tort such as International torts, Strict liability torts and Negligence torts.
Intelligence torts refer to the injuries or harms subjected towards a party of a business agreement by the counterpart in terms of physical assault or slandering tangible assets. In such cases, the relevant legal authority is supposed to determine the misconduct portrayed by the tortfeasor in terms of the action that they have committed (Oswald, 2014). On that note, those demeanors or apparent misconducts, which has not been performed deliberately, is considered as a sheer act of recklessness. On the other hand, torts intensive to gross negligence usually refers to the incident where one the leading player of a certain business agreement has been unable to exhibit proportionate care to the authoritarian counterpart and under sheer negligence, an act of tort has been conducted. Since the defendant is the sole liable, who is unable to dispense reasonable care is supposed to get penalized by the relevant legal institutions (Cheeseman, 2014).
Identification of the legal issues
In the attached case, in brief, Abdullah is supposed to provide thousand kilograms of meat to Taha from a contractual obligation. In this regard, the respective government has recently imposed a ban regarding the trading of meats within any premises or in terms of any sort of contracts due to the outbreak of lethal mouth and foot diseases. Taha posses a wish to victimize Abdullah from the perspective of contractual obligation, where in the advent of the ban proposed by the supreme legal authority Abdullah is potentially unable to serve the obligation that he is committed for. From the perspective of Taha, she is apparently lawful to accuse Abdullah for sheer breach of contractual obligations in terms of Sale of Goods since Abdullah is bound to perform the activities that he has promised to Taha in order to retain his prevalent designation in the underlying contract (Means, 2014).
On the other hand, Abdullah is helpless and appear sandwiched within the obligations that he is expected to retain. If Abdullah wishes to comply with the regulation proposed by the governing authority, Taha will get the evidence to demonstrate her objection in front of the relevant legal authority. On the other hand, if Abdullah has been found violating the regulations proposed by the government, he is vulnerable to be convicted as a tortfeasor in terms of state regulations.Moreover, his act, which is morally justifiable in terms of his attempt to retain the promises of the unilateral business that he is bound with, is likely to be posed as an act of deliberate negligence since it appears to portray gross disobedience towards the federal law.
Analyses of the issues against relevant regulations
In the current context, the notion of statute of frauds appears employable which serves the objection proposed by Taha. The unilateral contract that is supposed to bound Taha and Abdullah through the obligatory promises under the surveillance of which Abdullah is committed to deliver the product he is asked for (Stemler, 2013). Hereby, it can be incorporated with the embedded discourse that Statute of Frauds is conditioned to function as a federal law and designed to prevent cases of financial debauchery where the defendants feign naïve to pay or offer the expected deliverable within a due course of time. Moreover, as per the axioms of the respective federal law, the assets, which have been subjected to the financial debauchery, is supposed to posses the characteristic feature where it can move along with its concrete tangibility. The wraths of this federal law of commercial nature can be applicable at all categories of an written contract whereas in cases of oral or verbal agreements the applicability of the respective federal law is restricted within certain quarters with specific categories or aspects. For instance, the contracts, which have not been availed for more than a year, can be included in the domain of applicability of the respective federal law. In accordance with the current context, the applicability of this federal law is justifiable in favors of Taha since the unintentional demeanor of Abdullah is prominent enough to be objected as a sheer act of breaching the rudimentary norms of the unilateral contract under the virtue of which he is bound with Taha in an obligatory commitment. As specified by the nuances associated with the specific nocturnes of lawsuits associated with statute of frauds involve the participants where the deliverable equivalent of the amount that Abdullah has been expected to provide to Taha appears to own resemblance with the notion of promise to act (Trevino, 2016).
The essence of the Sale of goods contract caters the moral obligation to retain the authenticity of the transactions, which are oral or verbal in nature since casual transactions are supposed to be like that where the majority of the cardinal norms have been discussed through verbal agreements.
The terms, which are vulnerable to be implied in the current context, can be expressed as;
Apart from the aspects regarding the maxims that the Sales of Goods act pertain along with the notions of exceptions, Taha in the above-mentioned case can be projected as lawful since she has shown the conduct, which is vulnerable for anyone to react in the same way. On the other hand, considering the helplessness of Abdullah, it also needs to be mentioned that the conduct that has been exhibited by Abdullah is nothing abysmal for the identical persons to dispense in such circumstances.
Advice & Conclusion
As Taha has decided to lodge a lawsuit against Abdullah accusing him about the sheer violation of the contract, which is justifiable in terms of the Sales of, Goods act. The pertaining notion of Statute of Frauds is also applicable in this regard due to the seamless demonstration, which is supposed to convict Abdullah in front of the relevant legal authority (Oswald, 2014). On that note, in favor of the decision that has been taken by Taha, she can be advised to generate the written memorandum which symbolizes her plea in a concise manner along with the pertaining nuances towards the occurring of the act of breach. The written memorandum is an imperative requisite since the respective unilateral contact and the terms of the deal has been dictated in terms of oral statement and the respective accusation from Taha do not hold any legal enforceability until she has been able to provide the memorandum (Means, 2014). Furthermore, what Taha requires is to present a copy of the memorandum in front of the provincial federal law with the attestation provided by Abdullah who is prone to introduce the element of dispute in the entire lawsuit program.
On the other hand, Abdullah appear apparently helpless since Taha happens to have all the requisite advantage regarding the lawsuit which is supposed to convict Abdullah against the charges regarding the violation of the protocols of the underlying contract (Masciandaro, 2017). On that note, he can be advised to seek for the platform where he have been able to portray his obligation regarding the objection subjected towards him in order to consolidate his stance of sheer helplessness. Moreover, the broader cause which refraining him to respond to his commitment regarding the contract needs to be demonstrated in front of the relevant legal authority in order to signify the opacity and under-specification of the accusation.
Identification of the legal issues
The case hereby can be summarized as Abdullah appear to hide behind the exclusion clause, which endows Charima and other participants of the trip with the liability to take responsibilities of their own losses. Abdullah is supposed to guide them through the safe trajectory while moving towards the desired destination. On that note, Abdullah has been unable to accomplish the desired destination within the fixed time and intends to avail a short-cut with the active awareness of the fact that competent guides prefers to avoid the shortcut since the road has a notorious reputation due to its proclivity of debauchery and treacherous activities (Kraakman, 2017). The subsequent damages including physical harm of some of the participants of the trip can introduce the notion of tort within the premises of discussion where Abdullah has been appeared to choose the trajectory despite of the awareness regarding the notorious nature of the road. The legislative principles regarding tort is very likely to come since this act of Abdullah, though does not catering any direct harm as a consequence of pursuing some of his own didactic purpose, caused several tangible damage regarding physical harm. Hereby, it can be stated that the injured is completely justified to lodge a case against Abdullah on the aspects of civil wrong and fatal injury.
Analysis of the issues against exclusion clause
As Charima and her fellow mates of this trip is completely aware of the fact, which epitomize the exclusion clause of Abdullah’s business, that any cause of damage regarding the tangible assets possessed by the participants of the trip is free from any sort of liability obligation of the guide. On this empirical note, it may seem that Abdullah must not be convicted for the physical harms and the collateral damage subjected to the expensive amenities due to the wrong decision taken by Abdullah to avail a notorious road (Crane, 2016). Moreover, since a natural calamity causes the entire catastrophe Abdullah can be sanctified on that notion. However, the misinterpretation that literally obliged Abdullah to take the notorious road can be the cardinal nuance of the entire case where that caters the accusation subjected towards Abdullah.
Analysis of the issues against recovering damages
As in the exclusion clause of the entire program Abdullah has conveyed the fact that he owes next to no liability regarding any incidents that facilitates damages to any tangible property. In this regard, the landslide, which is a natural calamity, chiefly causes the accident and Abdullah cannot be convicted on that note. Moreover, it is of no surety that avoiding that path or an equivalent alternative of the notorious road might not cause such harm and fatal damage towards the tangible property (Cheeseman, 2014). The only ground regarding the attached case study that might victimize Abdullah as a tortfeasor is the intent that advocated Abdullah to take the deceptive road just for the petty favor of the short cut. Though the intent cannot be extensively designated as crooked as it does not seem to crave for the calamity that the entire trip has experienced and on the same note Abdullah cannot be accused directly.
Analysis of the issues against duty of care & breach of duty
Tort also incorporates the notion, which intends to reflect about the inability of a liable to exhibit proportionate care as per the requisites of the responsibility that the man was inherently endowed with. On that note, Abdullah appear liable to respond to the subsequent aftermath that has occurred after taking the deceptive route since it owns a considerable vulnerability of the assets being snatched. Furthermore, it is also a pivotal duty for Abdullah to ensure the safety of the participants of the trip and since he is aware about the fact that the road can pose a sheer challenge regarding the safety of the participants of the trip, he can be convicted on that note.
Analysis of the issues against negligence tort
This segment associated with the prevalent ones can be incorporated as the several cardinal components of the notions associated with the tort of negligence since while having the potent awareness about the road that Abdullah have chosen as a shortcut can be projected as a prelude of negligence dispensed by Abdullah (Allen, 2016). Moreover, if the awareness regarding the deceptive nature of the road has prevalently advocated Abdullah to avoid the road in terms of vulnerability of a potent challenge to emerge that is potent enough to threat the security regarding the physique and the assets, Abdullah might prevent this accident from occurring.
Abdullah can be offered vindication regarding the fact that the damage of tangible assets and the corresponding physical injury is inevitable aftermath of the landslide, which is a natural calamity regarding which Abdullah cannot be victimized directly. The potential hindrance which might arise in this regard that the intent which enable Abdullah to avail the deceptive road is crooked in nature since he has availed it after the awareness of the road as notorious and posses possible chances of treachery. Moreover, the relative advantage that Charima and other plaintiffs enjoy in this regard is the cause that if the awareness about the road should have been advocated Abdullah, he might not have to experience this calamity and the aftermaths of it. Abdullah needs to be aware about the fact that from what likely origins plaintiffs should accuse him that might help to vindicate his stance regarding the desire that just seek the privilege of the shortcut.
Charima is supposed to be the major plaintiff in this case since most of the causalities have been subjected towards her and her fellow mates of the trip and undoubtedly enjoy several advantages regarding the upcoming lawsuit. First of all, he can initially justified to lodge a case regarding the damages that the respective accident cause along with the physical injuries. In this note Charima can be advised to convict Abdullah in the grounds of breaching the responsibilities that he is being inherently endowed with. Moreover, she can lodge a potent complain regarding the intent that advocates Abdullah to avail the deceptive while having the awareness that the road is prone to be termed as a potential challenge regarding the safety of her and her fellow mates of the trip.