Contract and Liability Essay

Instructions

Write a report on Contract and Liability

 

Sample Paper Written By our Writers

Legal Issue Report
Introduction

The report discusses the validity on the contracts Duracom has with clients and liabilities of parties in the railway accident that caused injury of passengers and a train driver on board a Westwork train when it derailed along the bridge on river Exe. The railway was constructed using Duracom’s product Durapex. The report analyses the position of Duracom in the matter, explaining their involvement in the accident, where they are liable, what damages might be sought and who else may be liable in the process.

Contracts

As seen in the case Brogden v. Metropolitan Railway Co. (1876-77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 666, the contract between Duracom and azure was informal, not put on paper but azure impliedly accepted Duracom’s offer to deliver Durapex, and intern accepted receipt of the product once every week, (Net Industries and its Licensors, 2016).

Liability as To Accident and Damages.

Durapex was the product used in the construction of the bridge; the product is ideally durable, strong and would be well suited for the bridge under normal conditions the malfunctions of the bridge may have been due to poor storage of the building materials, bad weather, or unsuitable ground for construction of the bridge. In the first scenario, the employee, Goldie Gate, improperly stored the materials that made the bridge support; his actions were negligent, as he owed responsibility to check the storage labels properly. However, Duracom is legally responsible for the mistakes that its employees make in the course of duty to a third party hence vicariously responsible. Storage of the building materials in an airtight condition may have contributed to the structural failure of the bridge, (Lawmentor.co.uk., 2016)

Top tracks, the company managing the construction was subcontracted to build the bridge by Westworks. The contract to do so put Top Tracks in charge of all the details of the project. Their choice to build the bridge in an area that is unsuitable for large construction may be said to be ill informed. The expert surveyor, Robert advised the construction company that the area was suitable, these was contrary to published information in reputable journals. As held in Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd, [1964] AC 465, the surveyor owed a duty to give accurate information and therefore negligently misrepresented the information. The judge ruling the case added as obiter dicta that statements made carelessly and result on financial loss may also be classified as negligent misrepresentations, where their untruthfulness is fact, (Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. V. Heller & Partners, Lt, 2010). The surveyor advised the company to use Duracom’s product, while the suitability of these products is undisputed the company encountered financial loss by using it. Duracom has to prove that, whereas an employee improperly stored the concrete, the concrete itself is conducive for such a construction and would not have caused structural failure if properly used. The conditions under which the construction of the bridge was done were unsuitable and may have contributed to poor construction and weakness of the supporting structures.

Looking For a Professional Essay writer? Order With Us Today For A Quality Written Law Assignment 

Super computers limited (SCL) was subcontracted to installed the signaling system. This malfunction caused a train to fail to stop in which case the accident would not have occurred. The exemption clause in the contract between top tracks and SCL exempts them from liability in all cases including that of negligence exceeding £50,000. However, such provisions do not apply in cases of death or personal injury such as that inflicted on passengers and the train driver. As seen in Hollier v Rambler Motors (1972), SCL is liable in connection with accident, (Segarajasingham, S., 2013. P. 1).

The omissions of the train driver contributed to the accident. The driver of the train had the ability to manual stop the train as he already knew of the problem with the railway line beforehand. His failure to do so lead to the accident,  his actions may be regarded as contributory negligence as his work as a train driver include controlling the train in the remote control system malfunctions, he did not have any information to know the remote controls were malfunction but it was his responsibility to manually stop the train, (Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C., 2015).

conclusion

All the actions and omissions that occurred in the time between the construction of the bridge to the occurrence of the accident provide sufficient prove to correctly assume that all factors worked in collaboration leading to the accident. The losses that Westworks accrued were unfortunate but cannot be solely blamed on a single party. Duracom’s role was contributory but not at all the sole cause for the injuries and losses. Any suit claiming remedies in damages for any monetary loss would be misplaced. The weakness of the poor supporting structures cannot be blamed on a well-known and reliable product such as Durapex. The land on which the bridge was built was well known to be unable to support a structure such as the railway. Project managers who ignored such obvious sign are responsible for the adverse results. Duracom therefore is not liable for the losses, if in any case the contrary is proved, the liability as to damages must be shared by all who were involved in the construction and operation of the project.

 

References

Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. V. Heller & Partners, Ltd. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWALawRw/1964/8.pdf

 

Lawmentor.co.uk. (2016). lawmentor.co.uk - Resources - Outline the concept of vicarious liability in tort and discuss the relevance of this principle today. Retrieved from http://www.lawmentor.co.uk/resources/essays/outline-concept-vicarious-liability-tort-discuss/

 

Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, S.C. (2015). CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWSIN ALL 5O STATES. Retrieved from https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/contributory-negligence-comparative-fault-laws-in-all-50-states.pdf

 

Net Industries and its Licensors. (2016). Acceptance - Types Of Acceptance - Occurs, Offer, Implied, and Conditional - JRank Articles. Retrieved from http://law.jrank.org/pages/3949/Acceptance-Types-Acceptance.html

 

Segarajasingham, S. (2013). Freedom of Contract vs. Exemption Clauses: A need f or Predictability [PDF]. Retrieved from http://archive.cmb.ac.lk/research/bitstream/70130/3360/1/AnnualResearchSymposium2012UniversityofColombo.128-130.pdf

 

Do You Know That our Professional Writers are on Stand-by to Provide you with the Most Authentic Custom Paper. Order with us Today and Enjoy an Irresistible Discount!