The first set of facts in these cases of law portrays Antony who is a New Jersey resident and owned a wast disposal company and decided to expand his business to New York city. On one Sunday afternoon, he drove the company's SUV to Queens for meeting with a local queens based waste disposal company in order to enter into a joint venture with the local disposal company for collection of commercial waste. Antony was accompanied by his employees Paul and Silvio who were sitting at the back seats of the vehicle, and they drove across the George Washington bridge.
As they headed to the meeting, the company's SUV was traveling at an approximate speed of 30 miles per hour on the side streets of Queens. Tony stopped for traffic lights as he left along the Long Island Expressway at the Utopia Parkway ramp. a track which was traveling behind them over the speed limit was apparently unable to stop in time and as a result Tony's SUV was rear ended by the track owned by a fireworks company. As a result Paul and Silvio sustained injuries due to the crash and were hospitalized where the bill was 15000 dollars each and the car could not be repaired due to the extensive damage and was worth 85000 dollars.
Haven’t found the relevant content? Hire a subject expert to help you with Law Portrays Antony
From these facts, It shows that the truck driver was negligent at some point. According to (Stephenson 13), there are various elements of negligence which show that a person's acts are negligent. One element is duty to breach. According to law, it is the duty of a person to anticipate foreseeable danger and take any necessary precautions to prevent them from happening. If a persons act show that the act was unreasonable, it means he/she has breached the duty of care.
So as to know whether a person's acts are reasonable, it asks whether a person of average intelligence and who has the general regard of others would have acted in the same way and if the answer is no, the person's behavior is therefore seen as reasonable. Law usually assumes that people who are reasonable do not break the law. Although legal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, they are just conclusive expressions that in case of a certain negligent, liability should be imposed for the damage which has occurred.
The second element of negligence is causation where for a person to proof causation, the defendants actions must be seen to have been the cause of harm or made the plaintiff to suffer. According to causation, if the harm which has occurred would not have occurred without the wrongful act, then the act is the cause of the harm, again, if there is a close connection between the wrongful act and the harm caused, then it is the proximate cause.
The third elements of negligence is damages which helps the plaintiff to be restored back to the initial status before the occurrence of negligence inform of money. The plaintiff is allowed to collect medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering and any other loss which may have occurred. The final element is defense of negligence suit where the the plaintiff has to proof presence of all the elements of negligence since the defendant may be able to raise a legal defense. State laws allow comparative defense where the defendant and the plaintiff split the loss according to how much each of them is at loss.
In the facts therefore, the truck driver was negligent for over speeding and hitting Antony's car while carrying fireworks which may be explosive. If the truck would not have hit the car, the accident would not have occurred and the driver should have anticipated the accident and taken necessary precautions to prevent its occurrence.
The truck driver therefore should be liable for the accident and should restore Antony and his employees back to their initial status before the negligence by paying 85000 dollars worth of Anton's car and pay 30000 dollars total of the hospital bill of Paul and Silvio. These cases could be taken to the federal or state courts which deal with traffic laws because the negligence was a break of traffic laws.
Another set of facts shows that Antony was able to keep his business appointment and in the process he was angered because the Queens company were not interested in his terms of contact and as a result he held a gun to the head of the queens company vice president who therefore agreed to sign the agreement of the joint venture. The agreement was then brought to the president of the Queens company who was awoken from his sleep and told to sign the contract which he was told was from a company which is local vendor for truck parts and the president therefore signed the contact without reading as he was still sleepy. The contact however was canceled by the local law which prohibited parties from enforcing contacts regarding waste disposal companies which are located in New Jersey and New York.
From these facts the is a show of duress by Antony. According to (Farnsworth 257), elements of duress are; one, a person where by unlawful act of another person is induced to make a contract, perform or undergo some acts under the circumstances where the person is deprived the space to exercise his/her free will. Second is the person is in fear that the wrongful act will be carried therefore end up entering into the contract.
The presence of wrongful act or a threat because it is wrongful especially when made with the purpose to coerce a transaction which is unfair to the plaintiff and is not whatsoever related to the subject of such proceedings. The final element is where the person who is under duress has no opportunity to escape the threatened harm. The acts presented show totality of duress in the circumstances since duress depends on them.
From this therefore Antony should be accused of duress where he used threats to kill the vice president if she did not sign the contract, and as a result compelled her to sign the documents against her will and judgment. This is seen as duress because the Queens company members were induced to make the contract and were deprived the chance to make their own judgment. They also feared that Antony would actually kill them and they had no opportunity to escape since he was holding a gun.
The facts also shows negligent misrepresentation by the Vice president to the president. According to (Misrepresentation Act 2(1), elements of negligent misrepresentation are; there must be a duty of care which is based on special relationship between the representor and the representee, the representation must be untrue misleading and inaccurate and failure to give the needed information, the representor must have acted in a negligent manner while making the representation, the representee must in a reasonable manner relied on the misrepresentation and the reliance must have been detrimental to the representation therefore resulting to damage.
The vice president gave the wrong information to the president resulting to negligent misrepresentation and therefore he signed the papers. He also in a reasonable manner relied on the misrepresentation because the was sleepy and was told that the contract was from a local vendor of body parts.
Due to the contract becoming void, both Antony and The Queens company were to blame due their ignorance of law because they should have contacted the law before making the contact to see if it is lawfully correct to enter into contact between the two states. Such a case in law can be taken to the commercial courts because they deal with cases regarding business contracts. (Feliu & Jonson 98).
Other facts is that Paul who owned an appliance store advertised in the newspaper that the first person who enters in his store at 9.00AM and buys a 19'' plasma TV will get a free berbaque set and when Jim entered at 9.00AM and bought the 19'' set was told that they were out of stock. Paul then signed a contract with Sony saying he will buy all the 19'' TV that they produced and when they delivered he said that the amount was too vague.
Further, Silvio said that his house which he was selling permitted the house to be used as a two family dwelling and that the size was sufficient to permit the town to allow construction of an in-ground pool. A family which relied on the information bought the zone and the local department told them that the zoning permitted one family dwelling for the area.
In these cases, there are elements of misrepresentation. Misrepresentations involves giving false information by one person to the other before the contract which make the person to make the contract and if one suffers a loss as a result of the misrepresentation, he/she can claim for damages or cancel the contract. Misrepresentation must have a false statement, it should be directed to the suing party and the statement should be the one which induced the party to make the contract. A promise however cannot be a misrepresentation because it is made about the future and it cannot be true or false at the time it is made and claims in advertisements are not regarded by law as misrepresentations unless they are factual, (Franklin 20).
In Paul's case therefore, Jim cannot sue for damages because it was an advertisement which was based on the future and could not have been true or false at the time and the statement was not factual. Paul also had an intension of giving the berbeque set only that they were out of stock. The Sony company should cancel the contract and sue Paul for damages due to declining to take the goods yet he had indicated that he will buy all the 19'' sets they produced.
However for Silvio, the family which bought the property should sue for damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and be compensated for damages because the the statement was made with the intention of deceiving the customers while Silvio knew that it was false. These cases can be taken to the commercial law courts since they deal with cases regarding business contacts. (Misrepresentation Act 2(1).
Stein's son who is having financial problems goes to bank which requires Stein to be his Guarantor, Stein promises to pay loans if son defaults, the son fills the forms, Stein promises to sign later and son is given the loan but Stein refuses to sign and son defaults ion the loan. In this case, the bank should sue Stein for defaulting to pay the loan since he had promised that he would. It also shows that he entered into the contract without the intension of signing therefore although it was a future decision, he should pay for the damages to the bank because the intention of signing never actually existed. (William 402).
Stein's son meets a girl of his dreams and agrees to marry her, girl's father promises to buy him a jaguar if he marries the girl and when he married her, the in-law said he was joking and Stein's son sues the in-law and prepares for divorce. In this case, Stein can sue the in-law for damages because he had made a future promise which he did not intent to keep. On the other hand, he cannot be allowed to divorce the girl on the grounds that the in-law had refused to buy him the car because he had initially agreed to marry the girl even before the promise by the in-law was made.
Prichard enters into a written contact of buying land which had a clause which stated that the written contact was the final and complete understanding between the parties. however there was an oral agreement that the seller would remove a shed in the land but the written contact did not state it so, the seller refused to remove it. In this case, the clause which stated that the written contact is the final and bidding between the two is lawful.
Therefore, the written contact between Prichard and the sellers was the bidding contact in the eyes of law. Prichard therefore could not sue the seller for refusing to remove the shed in the rear because that was just an oral contract which in this contract was not regarded as bidding. The seller therefore could not pay for any damages to Prichard. (-http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_clauses.html#3 )
Prichard commences an advertising campaigns and hires Harry Banilow to create and record a theme record for commercial, Banilow's friend was requested by Banilow to compose on his behalf and Pritchard is furious. In this case Prichard should sue Banilow for not abiding to the contract which was signed between them. This is because the contact was between him and Prichard and not a third party which was being introduces by Banilow and therefore he should pay for damages to Prichard for breaching the contact. (Cheeseman 16).
Cheeseman Henry, Business law, Prentice hall, United States, 5(14) 2004 p16
Farnsworth Edward Allan, Contracts, Little, Brown, ISBN: 0316274615, 1982, p257
Feliu Alfred & Johnson Weyman, negligence in employment law, BNA books, United States, 2002, p98
Franklin Bob, Social policy, the media and misrepresentation, Routledge, ISBN: 0415201063, 1999, p 20
Graham Stephenson, source book of tort law, Routledge Cavendish, ISBN: 18549415873, 2000, p13
Larson Aaron, common contract clauses, October 2003 http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_clauses.html#3
Misrepresentation Act 1967 s2(1)
William Junker, past's weight, future's promise, philosophy literature, vol 27(2), October 2003, p402-414
Haven’t found the relevant content? Hire a subject expert to help you with Law Portrays Antony