Introduction
In the neighborhood newspaper, Simon places an advertisement for the sale of a book. Fernando, who is aware of Simon's address, sends him a check for the same amount plus an extra sum to cover the cost of the package and postage. Additionally, on Sunday night, Ali notices the advertisement and promptly sends Simon an email expressing his desire to buy the book for $6500. Simon answers to Ali after reading the email and informs him that the book costs $7000 and that he has till 2200 hours to react. At 2135hrs, Ali responds, accepting to buy the book at that price and in the evening posts a cheque. However, Simon fails to open Simon's email and deletes it, thinking that it is spam. On Monday morning, he sells the book at $10,000 to Gollum Books Ltd because he has not received Ali's response. He later emails Ali terminating the deal. If Ali and Fernando were to go to court, then Ali has a contractual liability case to answer.
Law
Simon is liable for violating the tortious interference with business Expectancy and contract law, which takes place when an individual intentionally destroys the plaintiff's contractual or another business relationship with a third party. This common law tort creates a delicate balance between two concepts: protecting reasonably confident perspective or existing contractual relations or promoting economic competition that is healthy (Antony, 2006, p.9). The Contract Law encourages free, legal market competition, yet it also recognizes that essential rights, interests, and obligations worthy of safeguarding are born when a contract exists between two parties. However, contracts and business relationships are not safeguarded from intentional interference by other people. Additionally, even if the law court cannot prove the existence of a contract or developing a business relationship is not clear, it would look for the presence of an economic advantage. Some jurisdictions can pinpoint a tortious interference cause of action with a financial advantage. Nonetheless, when trying to prove the existence of an economic advantage, the plaintiff has to show the reasonable expectation for an economic advantage or benefit. Secondly, the defendant must have been aware of the expectancy. Thirdly, the defendant's actions must have intentionally or wrongfully interfered with the expectancy. Lastly, the claimant has to show the reasonable probability that he/she might have received the anticipated economic benefit had the defendant not interfered. Moreover, there has to be a damage that resulted from the actions of the defendant (Cerny & Newman, 2015, p.16).
Application
In the above case, there was no actual contract in play that ended up breached. Instead, there was a tortious interference with business relations and economic advantage. These claims do not concentrate on the establishment of an actual contract, but rather ascertaining that there was a business relationship. However, if establishing a business affiliation is difficult, then some jurisdictions concentrate on the concept of economic advantage. In the case of Ali and Simon, Ali has to prove that there was a relationship more than mere hope in existence, meaning that there has to be a reasonable probability for a contract to arise from both parties, following the current dealings (Thomson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 1979). Therefore, Ali would have to prove that a business relationship existed between him and Simon- this would be easy because there was a willing seller of a commodity (book) and a willing buyer of the same item. Further, there were negotiations on the price to exchange the ownership of the commodity. Moreover, from the above facts, it is clear that both Simon and Ali were almost getting into a deal before Simon terminated it. Secondly, he would have to show that Simon intentionally interfered with the business rapport (Cerny & Newman, 2015, p.12). Simon did, in fact, interfere with the business deal by deciding to go ahead and sell the book to Gollum Books Ltd and yet Ali had sent him an acceptance email and posted a cheque. However, besides selling the merchandise without informing Ali, he went ahead to call him after the business transaction to notify him that he was terminating the business agreement. Thirdly, Ali has to prove that Simon behaved improperly, which injured him and hence, he deserves compensation (Cerny & Newman, 2015, p.12). Ali was hurt since he wasted his resources trying to purchase a book and after sending a cheque, he could not get it. Consequently, Fernando should also prove that there was an economic advantage in play between him and Simon. Simon advertised the sale of a book but failed to state the details of how the business transaction would be handled. Simon did not specify in the advertisement that the buyer should begin by calling him. Besides, he should have taken the initiative to check his mailbox. Therefore, from Fernando's point of view, a business relationship was established the minute he wrote a cheque and posted it to Simon's address. Secondly, Fernando has to show that Simon was aware of the economic advantage. The moment the seller advertised the book he knew that he would get a financial gain. Thirdly, depict that Simon interfered with the expectancy. Fernando rushed to send Simon a cheque so that he would get the book on sale and the minute he sold it to another person; he interfered with Fernando's expectancy. Lastly, had Simon not been in a hurry to dispose of the book and checked his post before selling the book to Gollum Books Ltd, then Fernando would not have ended up losing his chance to a good book.
From the facts of the incident, it is clear that the minute Ali contacted Simon, and they began refining the details of the business deal, a business relationship was established. Further, from Ali's perspective, Simon did breach the business association by calling off the deal because he had already agreed to the terms of the sale, sent him an email to inform him, and posted a cheque of the requested amount. Therefore, he acted improperly, which hurt him and he lost the book that he wanted to purchase. Consequently, Simon has a contractual liability to Fernando because he posted the amount to pay for the book on Saturday. The only problem is that Fernando failed to inform Simon who is the person he was entering into a business relationship with. However, had Simon indicated the timeline for sale, then he would have received the cheque from Fernando long before he began striking a deal with Ali and finally sold the book to Gollum Books Ltd.
Negligence
Simon's wife, Fern, goes to Good Buys, a supermarket in the neighborhood to purchase coffee. While cycling in the parking lot, he is hit by Joe, who got his license for operating forklifts recently. However, as he goes through the parking, there is a signage stating that Good Buys does not compensate for any injuries occurring irrespective of how they do happen. Fern hits her head and becomes unconscious, and although she is not wearing a helmet, there is evidence that Joe was driving too fast and he was trying to brag to his friends.
Law
Despite attempting to bar itself from tortious liability, Good Buys supermarket is legally liable for the safety of customers and workers within the business premises. Therefore, Fern can sue the supermarket for negligence, which portrays an incident where the injuries may not be intentional, but they would have been avoided. Further, for a successful negligence claim, the claimant has to show that the defendant owed him/her duty to care, which he breached, the plaintiff sustained injuries and the violation of duty was the proximate cause for the petitioner's suffered injuries (Statsky, 2011, p.15.4). Each societal member must behave in a manner that prevents an unreasonable risk to harm other people. However, the standard that regulates the nature of care duty is both flexible and objective and relies on the specific conditions circumventing the injury.Moreover, the supermarket violated the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1984 and 1957 and the Safety and health at work act 1974. The Occupiers Liability Acts of 1984 and 1957 states that an occupier has a responsibility to make sure visitors to the premises are safe. Occupiers can do this by putting up enough warning signs, making sure that the premises are safely repaired and when necessary, being in the company of the visitor while they are on the premises. The Safety and Health at Work Act 1974, on the other end, regulates the provisions necessary for maintaining the safety, health, and welfare of people at work, including the control of storage areas and the use of dangerous equipment and substances. Under section 3, contractors or premises owners must protect members of the public (RSC, 2017, p.4).
Application
According to the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1984 and 1957, it is the responsibility of the occupier to make sure that visitors in his/her premises are reasonably safe while accessing the premises. Therefore, instead of putting up signage to tell members of the public that they would not be compensated for injuries sustained while accessing the car park, he should have informed them of the security risks. Therefore, the supermarket violated their duty to care for members of the public, in this case, Fern. Further, the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provides that the employer must care for the safety of members of the public. Therefore, in as much as Good Buys supermarket had put a sign to warn the public that they are not responsible for any injuries incurred, they are responsible for securing the premises so that they are safe. So, the supermarket did breach the duty of care.Secondly, Fern has to prove that the incident was the proximate cause of injuries she sustained, also known as "but for" and in this case, it is. The incident taking place at the car park should be the direct cause of the injuries sustained, and in this case, it was. Fern would not have been hit on her head with a forklift, had Joe not been showing off. When Joe hit Fern, she fell unconscious, so it was not the fall that made her unconscious but being hit with the forklift. Further, the hit destroyed her bicycle. Therefore, it is clear that the supermarket did not hire experienced people to ensure the safety of its customers and for that, they can be sued with a negligence claim (RSC, 2017, p.4).
Conclusion
From the facts of the incident, it is clear in as much as the supermarket did not want to compensate Fern or any other person who sustained an injury in the car park they are legally liable to compensate Fern. The supermarket neglected their duty to care by not providing a safe environment. They should have put a clear sign to inform the public of the use of a forklift by an inexperienced forklift operator. That way, they would have said that in addition to warning the public that they would not compensate them, they had put up safety precautionary measures. Moreover, had they hired a competent forklift operator and put in place supervisory measures, Joe would have been careful enough not to hit the supermarket's customers. Also, he would not have been showing off but careful not to hit Fern and inflict head injuries on her. Additionally, had Fern not been hit, she would not have sustained any personal injuries. Therefore, Fern can successfully sue the supermarket and get compensated for the injuries she sustained while on their premises.
References
Thomson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198, 209, 412 A.2d 466, 471(Pa.1979).
Occupiers Liability Acts of 1984 and 1957
Health and Safety at Work Act 1974
Antony, D. N. (2006). Tortious Interference with Contract or Business Expectancy: An Overview of Virginia law. The Virginia Bar Association News Journal, 9-14.
Cerny, T. H., & Newman, Z. G. (2015). Tortious Interference with Contracts and Prospective Business Advantage: Proving and Defending Claims. Strafford, 1-48.
RSC. (2017). What can you be liable for and why? Retrieved December 15, 2017, from RSC: http://www.rsc.org/images/4_liable_tcm18-17646.pdf
Statsky, W. P. (2011). Chapter 15: Torts, Negligence, and Strict Liability. In W. P. Statsky, Essentials of Torts (pp. 1-25). Cengage Learning.
