Case analysis Essay Example

  • Category:
    Law
  • Document type:
    Assignment
  • Level:
    Undergraduate
  • Page:
    2
  • Words:
    820

Case study

Case study

Josh and Julie have a strong case against Brenda, which I would advise them to pursue. They will build their case on the professional negligence against Brenda since as professional there is some duty of care which Brenda owe Josh and Julie. In law negligence can be defined as the cause of action in which a plaintiff may affirm that a civil tort case against the defendant1. For Josh to build its case against Brenda in prima facie, they must proof the following conditions.

First, there was a duty on the part of Brenda (defendant) to conform to the specific set standard of conduct. Brenda was owed Josh and Julie a duty of care as professional who were given the contract to build a floor. The destruction has caused damage to the building hence Josh and Julie have suffered a financial loss. In the case of Ann v. Merton2in this case, the claimants were tenants on a flat block and the flats where they were suffered from structural defects as a result of the inadequate foundation made by the contractors. The council of the defendant was one of the people responsible for inspecting the building foundation during the construction process of the building. In the judge’s decision, they found that the perpetrator was owing no duty of care. The contract law stipulates that professionals owe duty of care to their clients.

. This case explains the duty of care which Brenda owe to Josh and Julie. In delivering its judgment on the Ann v. Merton3Lord Wilberforce gave the following test in determining duty of care;

Law of contract spells some of the important issues concerning the terms and conditions of contract which needs to be addressed. It should be noted that construction professionals as with other professionals may or may not be liable to their clients, and other extend third parties for loss or damage which arises as professional negligence. Josh should consider whether the loss is recoverable in contract or not. For Murphy v. Brentwood4in the judge decision, it found no basis in the judgment given on the liability of the builder. Though this is a bit deviation from the expected professional conduct as in the case of Ann v. Metro

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd5the judge concluded that though the financial statement was given, they failed to duty with due care hence were negligence in offering the services and were liable. It is not a must that the negligent actions by the defendant need to be meet but as long as there is a proximate cause as in our case. On the statement in the contract note inserted by Brenda that “Provider accepts no responsibility for defects in workmanship.” Is a statement of ignorance of law where the service provider includes the illegal clause to defend them self from the law of the state. As a construction consultant, Brenda must follow some expected code of conducts and standards laid down by the construction body. Brenda has a duty of ensuring that they deliver quality construction to their client and in the case of damage they owe a duty to their clients hence I would advise Josh to continue with the case against this constructor.

In delivering his judgment in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd6, In offering the contract, Josh and Julie are not legally bind that they have to offer the contract to the lowest bidder, and they are free to choose who to award the construction tender. The contract law elaborates on the willingness arrangement between two people and the people must agree to the terms and conditions set by the parties involves in the contract. Acceptance of the contract is very important and consideration proofs the existences and validation of the contract. The duty of care comes in under the contract and both parties must adhere to the terms and care for parties involve in the contract. Josh and Julie can use the law of negligence and law of contract to pursue the case against Brenda.

Bibliography

Ann’s v. Merton London Borough Council, 1978 ARC. 728 (1978).

Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, 1991 A.M. 398 (1991).

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd, 1964 ARC. 465 (1964).

Wade, JAW., 1961. Place of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence, The. La. L. Rev., 22, p.5.

1
Wade, JAW., 1961. Place of Assumption of Risk in the Law of Negligence, The. La. L. Rev., 22, p.5.

2
Ann’s v. Merton London Borough Council, 1978 ARC. 728 (1978).

3
Ann’s v. Merton London Borough Council, 1978 ARC. 728 (1978).

4
Murphy v. Brentwood District Council, 1991 A.M. 398 (1991).

5
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd, 1964 ARC. 465 (1964).

6
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v. Heller & Partners Ltd, 1964 ARC. 465 (1964).