ENTERPRISE LAW
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kenyatta University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
TAXATION
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by MasterStarOwl18
1
ENTERPRISE LAW, LAWS1001
Assessment task 3
Cindy Chepkemei
September 25, 2023
2
In addressing the problem scenario involving Mr. Pieters' claim against Greg for the
$50,000 damage to his pool's filtration system, the key areas of law, concepts, and principles
must be applied to assess the claim’s validity. The primary legal principles that come into play
here are contractual agreements, negligence, and the enforceability of limitation of liability
clauses.
Contractual Agreements
In this case, a contractual relationship was established between Mr. Pieters and Greg
when Mr. Pieters agreed to hire Greg for the maintenance and cleaning of his pool in exchange
for $200 per month. Contracts are legally binding agreements, and their terms and conditions are
crucial in determining the rights and obligations of the parties involved.
Negligence
Negligence is a fundamental principle in tort law. It involves the failure to exercise
reasonable care, resulting in harm or damage to another party. To establish negligence, the
following elements must be proven:
a.
Duty of Care: The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
b.
Breach of Duty: The defendant breached that duty through their actions or omissions.
c.
Causation: The breach of duty caused the plaintiff's harm.
d.
d. Damages: The plaintiff suffered actual harm or loss as a result of the breach.
Limitation of Liability Clauses
The enforceability of liability clauses depends on several factors, including their clarity,
conscionability, and whether the party seeking protection acted negligently. Now, applying these
legal principles to Mr. Pieters' situation:
Contractual Agreement
3
Mr. Pieters and Greg entered into a contractual agreement for pool maintenance and
cleaning services. This agreement establishes a legal relationship and obligations between the
two parties.
Negligence
The central issue is whether Toby's deliberate failure to clean the filtration system
constitutes negligence and if Greg can be held liable for it.
Mr. Pieters may argue that Greg owed a duty of care to ensure that his employees
performed their tasks diligently and that Greg breached this duty by failing to supervise
or address Toby's potential grudge against salt water pools.
Causation may be established if it can be proven that Toby's negligence directly caused
the $50,000 damage to the filtration system.
Mr. Pieters incurred actual damages in the form of the cost to repair or replace the
damaged filtration system.
Limitation of Liability Clause
The clause in the brochure provided by Greg attempts to limit his liability for damages
caused by his employees, except in cases of negligence on his part as an employer.
To enforce this clause, Greg must demonstrate that he exercised due diligence as an
employer to prevent Toby's actions or that Toby's actions were solely responsible for the
damage.
In this case, the outcome may depend on the specific evidence presented. Mr. Pieters may
argue that Greg did not exercise due diligence in supervising his employees or preventing
potential negligence. Conversely, Greg may contend that he had no reason to anticipate Toby's
actions. To determine the enforceability of the limitation of liability clause and whether Greg can
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
be held liable, the court will consider factors such as the clarity of the clause, the circumstances
surrounding Toby's actions, and whether Greg fulfilled his duty of care as an employer.
Consulting with a legal expert experienced in contract law and negligence is essential to navigate
the complexities of this case and determine the best course of action.