Case: Jeniffer and John
The ABCDs of negligence in this case are: A, the defendant breached the legal duty to the plaintiffs for amongothers, failing to read the waiver of liability or asking the aticiants to read it thoroughly rior to the excursion. B, the defendant breached the legal duty owed to the plaintiff. C, the defendat’s actions and inactions resulted in injur to the plaintiff and D, the plaintiff experienced harm and injuries resulting from the defendat’s actions and or inactions.
Under the duty of care, WER Inc. was required to ensure that personnel operating the boats were qualified and that they followed the stipulated procedures in ensuring the passsengers understand the risks involved in rafting prior to signing the waiver. The company also had an obligation to ensure that the ooperators enhance all safety measures and have a system in place that ensures the safety of the participants during the entire process. Secondly, by sending a untrained peson to conduct business for the company that otherwise reuires trained personnel, the company breached the customer’s trust.
(HireEssayWriter for a similar paper)
Notably, given the nature of the exercise and the risks involved in rafting, WER Inc. ad a dut of care, at least under the law of tort. The nature of the trip created a leagal duty under competence, as the participants expect the company to provide trained drivers. In this case, the participants expected the drivers and WER Inc to operate the boats safely and with a certain degree of care, which the company failed.
WER Inc. also breached its duty to its clients through neglect that caused the injuries. The injuries to theWily and Den were a direct cause of Jennifer and Johns actions or inaction. More so, the injuries sustained were longterm and could potentially affet the victims ability to return to their conventional ways of living. This creates an element of damages where the court could reward the plaintiff for injuries in the form of monetary compensation or medical care.
Contract Law – Jonathan
In contract law, a contract should be signed by the person with a legal capacity to sign. In the case of a contract on an asset, the signatory should have title to the asset as is in this case. As such, drunkards cannot sign a contract as they are not in their right mind. Hence, in the case of Jonathan, his contract with Northern Mining and LNG remain invalid. The two companies, Nothern Mining and LNG are not in a position to compel Jonathan to perform the contract as he does not have the capacity to sign under contract law.
However, the contract between Joe and Jonathan is valid. During the signing, Jonathan demonstrated sanity and to be of clear mind as required to validate a contract under contract law. In this case, Jonathan was in a capacity to fulfill his contract with Joe. Meanwhile, Jonathan can sue Northern Mining and LNG since their contract with Garret was not in writing. Although, in some intances a word of mout contract is valid, under contract law, Garret made an offer which Jonathan accepted but is legally allowed to retract from. Since the lawyers forced Jonathan to sign the contract while intoxicated, the contract is null and void.
