In: Accounting
QUESTION 1
Bill informs the security guard in London Shop that he saw
another shopper stealing something. The security guard corners the
shopper and accuses them of shoplifting. The security guard uses
his arms to block the shopper from leaving the store until the
police arrive.
The accused shopper may be able to bring tort action against the
store on the grounds of _____________________.
assault. |
||
battery. |
||
false imprisonment. |
||
vicarious liability. |
1 points
QUESTION 2
The Queen's Wardrobe, a dressmaking boutique, agrees to make Rhonda's wedding dress for $2 000. The dress is to be ready for her wedding on June 1st. On May 14th, Jane, the owner called Rhonda to tell her that the dress would not be ready on time unless Rhonda agreed to pay an extra $500 so that Jane could hire someone to help her finish the lace embroidery. Rhonda is very upset, and feeling that she has no other choice, agrees. When she picks up the dress, she tells Jane that she does not think that it is fair that she should have to pay more than they had agreed upon and refuses to do so.
Since Rhonda has received the benefit of Jane having paid the extra money to get the dress completed on time, she must pay the extra money. |
||
By agreeing to pay and then refusing to do so, Rhonda has committed tort of deceit and a court would award Jane the $500. |
||
Since Jane was obligated under the contract to make the dress for $2 000, there is no consideration for Rhonda's promise to pay more and it is therefore unenforceable. |
||
Since Rhonda agreed to pay more, she has altered the terms of the contract and must therefore pay the extra $500. |
1 points
QUESTION 3
Mary invites some friends to dinner and they accept. They purchase a much more expensive bottle of wine than they would normally drink and a beautiful bouquet of flowers. Mary calls them two hours before the dinner to tell them she has been invited out by the man of her dreams and is postponing the dinner.
The friends can claim the cost of the flowers and the wine since Mary has breached the contract. |
||
Since Mary is merely postponing the dinner, she has not breached their dinner contract. |
||
Even though they accepted her dinner offer, this is not a situation in which one party can sue another, since no reasonable person would think that there was any intention on Mary's part to create a legally enforceable contract. |
||
Mary may not have intended to be bound to her promise, but her friends have suffered a loss and she cannot now claim she did not mean to enter a contract to provide dinner since she did not say that when she made her offer. |
Solution 1 : The accused shopper may be able to bring tort
action against the store on the grounds of vicarious liability.
Correct option is d) vicarious liability as here security guard
(who represents the store and work for the store as their duty) is
employees of the store and therefore shopper may bring tort action
against the store.
There are three main elements of vicarious liability first that the
commitment of tort must be by employee. Second tort must be
committed and third tort must be commited in course of employment.
So option d is correct.
Option a is incorrect as here in this case tort action cannot be bought agaist on babsi of assault.
Option b is incorrect as it is irrelevant.
Option c is irrelevant as there is nowhere mentioned that
shopper was imprisoned.
Solution 2 Correct option is d) Since Rhonda agreed to pay more,
she has altered the terms of the contract and must therefore pay
the extra $500.As there are changes in the terms of contract and
both parties have agreed upon so option d is coorect.
Option a is incorrect because no extra benefit was availed
seeing the original terms of contract.
option b is incorrect as there was no misinterpretation of false
statement claimed by any party so this is not case of tort of
deciet.
option c is incorrect as later both the parties agreed to change
the terms of contract and therefore enforceable.
Solution 3 Option c is correct as inviting someone to dinner and
accepting invitation does not bound parties legally as intention to
Be bound by agreement one of the basic element of contract is
missing. So this option is correct.
Option a is incorrect as there was no contract. As intention to
enter into contract is missing.
option b is incorrect as again there was no contract so mere
postponement doesn't matter.
Option d is incorrect as mere invitation to a dinner is not a
contract and friends cannot claim for the loss suffered.
Hope this helps:)