BSP 1004 – Legal Environment of Business
Mid-Term Individual Assignment
This question exposes the issues of the liabilities and negligence on Andy’s part, enforceability of the exemption clause, and the possible remedies for David and Julie.
In demonstrating a dance move and knocking down David, Andy displayed a form of professional negligence. David then broke his wrist (personal injury) and damaged his watch (property). Andy failed to fulfill his ‘duty of care’ requirement and had breached it. The ‘duty of care’ is reasonable in this context as Andy is deemed as a skilled expert in his field (since he is giving dance lessons) and expected to provide the required ‘care’ to prevent such accidents. We examine the case law of Caparo Industries v. Dickman (1990), using the established “three-fold test”:
• harm must be a "reasonably foreseeable" result of the defendant's conduct
• a relationship of "proximity" between the defendant and the claimant
• it must be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability,
to test the ‘duty of care’ on Andy’s part. Based on the facts that David’s injuries are directly caused by Andy’s collision; Andy is David’s instructor; it is reasonable to hold Andy liable for his actions, it can be seen that the “three-fold test” is fulfilled in all aspects. Andy had clearly breached his required ‘duty of care’.
To determine the possible liabilities for Andy, we examine the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA). For UCTA Section 2 to be valid on this case, we refer to UCTA Section 1(3), which states that ‘… case of both contract and tort, sections 2 to 7 apply only to business liability, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties arising from things done or to be done by a person in the course of a business (whether his own business or another’s), and references to liability are to be read accordingly’. In other words, for Andy to assume liability towards his students, it must be held that he is teaching these...