ASSIGNMENT: Business Law NAME: UNIVERSITY: COURSE TITLE: DATE: INSTRUCTOR:

QUESTION ONE
Tort is a body of obligations, rights, and remedies applied courts in the civil proceedings for providing relief for suffered persons from wrongful deeds of others. The plaintiff is an individual who sustains an injury or to some extent suffers pecuniary damage due to tortious conduct. The tortfeasor or the defendant is the person who inflicts the injury and also incurs liability for damage. According to the case of Lance and Cadella vs. Parramatta Council, there is a breach of the law of tort. There is in respect of rights regarding Lance by the Parramatta Council. Lance is riding towards a park through the Macquarie Avenue where he gets into an accident. The cause of the crash is a chain strung by the council. However, the plaintiff does not know the existence of the line since the last few days he rode over the same route, and it was smooth and encouraging for riding. There should be an establishment of three elements in every action of tort. One of them is that the plaintiff (Lance and Cadella) ought to establish that the defendant (Parramatta Council) was doing the legal duty of acting in a particular fashion. Another element is that Lance and Candella to demonstrate that the council breached the duty by not conforming the behavior accordingly. The third part is that Lance and Candella ought to prove that the injury suffered is a direct result of the council’s breach (KEENAN & RICHES, 2007).
The actions of tort do not depend upon the consent of the parties to a particular lawsuit. Tort actions involve private citizens, and the remedies include money, injunctions, and damages. It is worth noting that those who break the laws are not subject to either incarceration or fine in civil court. There exist various actions against the torts. One of the actions that Lance should take against the Parramatta Council is that of negligence. The fact that Lance and his wife rode on the same route the previous week, and there was no presence of the chain depicts that he acted the same way by riding fast over the street. On putting the chain, the council did not inform Lance to avoid any unpredictable injury. By not creating awareness or even putting the notice that there was the insertion of a chain holds the board liable for the damage caused to the cyclist. More so, there is action against the breach of confidence. The color of the string was gray just like that of the path and this brought confusion. The council handles any form of injury since it ought to paint in at least a different color that any reasonable human being can see and avoid some predictable accidents. Lack of proper communication to the public as well as unclear signs to the mounting of the chain makes the council breach the tort.
Another action of tort is that of attractive nuisance. The path leading to the park attracted the cyclist to ride fast. The hazardous condition of the entrance of the park make the council bear the loss realized by the cyclist (Lance) and the wife. The board ought to make the path leading to the entrance a bit rough so that any normal human being o happens to ride on the road does not do it fast. It will create some time for the cyclist to apply brakes when he or she realizes the presence of the chain. It is evident that if Lance were riding quite slowly, the braking session would be possible before the accident happened. The council holds the responsibility of making sure that any form of actions that may lead to accidents happening are avoidable at all cost. There is a lack of information to the customers of the park whereby the council expected to have continued considerations for them. There is understanding that Lance and the wife rode to the park the previous Sunday. Therefore, the council has a duty to inform to them for any changes made to the park. However, ignorance by the council to let Lance and the wife know of the current changes makes them responsible for the injury caused to Lance. Lance should take the action of ignorance towards the council, and it is enforceable by the court of law. The private life of the customers (Lance and Candella) interfered with in a risky manner, and their plaintiff should sue the council for compensation and payment of damages (PARSONS, 2011).
The overall action by Lance and Candella towards the Parramatta Council is that of negligence. The negligence supersedes all the elements actionable to the council by Lance and his wife. The neglect also depicted by the lack of considerations, communication, and an unclear sign of mounted chain as well as an attractive nuisance to mention but a few. All the stated elements make the council liable for the accidents caused by their negligence in the park. They ought to at least have a soldier who informs the public who get into the park as customers that there is a mounted chain. This will reduce the predictable accidents that may happen at the entrance of the park.

QUESTION TWO
Common law (Anglo-American Law or precedent) is a type of law based on decisions from the judges regarding the hearing of particular cases. It has no basis of constitution and consists of procedural remedies. The common law in the United States developed from customized judges that attributed to court decisions. It is worth noting that the courts of common law base the decisions on the prior pronouncements of the judiciary and not the on the basis of the legislative enactments. According to the case of Andrew vs. Smith’s Auto, there is evidence that the terms of contracts contained in the A4 white paper bound both the parties. However, there some ignorance depicted by Andrew where he did not take the time to read the terms and conditions. Despite the fact that he used to have some services from the same motors, he should read the expressions of the contract before signing off any document. The presence of the notice (“All vehicles accepted for repair subject to the terms and conditions appearing in our invoice”) binds Andrew even more to the contact. The ignorance realized cannot hold evidence for supporting Andrew and therefore, anything that comes after either positive or negative implies that Andrew is to blame (OSBORNE, 2007).
According to the principles of the common law, there is an aspect of “Stare Decisis”. It means that the judges of common law have the obligation to make decisions in their reports of law by deriving some evidence from decisions of previous controversies. The precedents or the past decided cases will help in solving the case whereby Andrew claims that his car developed some more defects than before. Regarding the common law, any written evidence as an agreement for a contract between parties is enforceable in a court of justice. The fact that Andrew signed the invoice indicating the completed work of repair protects Smith’s Auto. The signed invoice also has the terms indicating that the customer agrees to the corrected work. On finding that the vehicle seems to have no signs of repair makes no responsibility to the Smith's Auto. It shows that he has to suffer the loss alone unless they do it out of heart but according to law, his arguments are unenforceable.
There is a statement in the invoice that Smith’s Auto should not take responsibility for any form of loss caused by theft, fire or otherwise to the customer’s cars. Despite the repair done to Andrew’s car, the damage posed by the one who ran into the car is not a liability to the Smith’s Auto. It is due to the clear evidence put on notice to any customer then no responsibility the Auto should take. It means that the Andrew will have to bear the loss and have his car repaired again. The signing of the invoice binds Andrew to pay for the services of repair though he never enjoys the repair claimed done by the Smith’s Auto. According to the common law, anything that comes after the agreement through signing like in the case of Andrew and Smith is not part of the contract. It does not bind the parties to the contract and, therefore, is as well not enforceable by the law. If Andrew happens to claim that his car got the damages of the GPS system of navigation when is in the possession of the Smith’s Auto, he will not get any damages paid. It is because of the outlined instructions or terms of the contract that protect the Auto from any liability (KEENAN & RICHES, 2007).
The common law stipulates that ignorance not evidenced to breach a contract. Andrew breaks the contract by overlooking the terms of the contract and going to the extent of signing the invoice blindly. It leads to loss of support by the law since all the contractual duties meet the necessary elements for the favor of Smith’s Auto.
The fact that the invoice stated that Smith’s Auto should not take the liability for any theft of a customer’s car when under repair protects Smith from taking responsibility of the stolen GPS system. There is negligence on the side of Andrew where he refused to read the instructions or the terms contained in the invoice. The law understands the written and signed the invoice and therefore, any complaint by Andrew may not be enforceable by the court law. Andrew requires that he just approaches Smith for gentle conversation whether the Auto should help him recover the lost GPS, and repair again the rear wheel. The Smith’s Auto hold no obligation of repairing the destroyed motor and the stolen GPS again. Despite the fact that the manager of the Auto drove with Andrew’s car to the meeting, the contract states explicitly that the Auto takes no responsibility.
More so, the common law states that any agreement should have a consideration to the offer made between the contractual parties. When Andrew leaves the car for repair, he gives no account that would act as an element of the evidence that he had his car left for repair. Besides, there should be no ignorance in any form of contact according to the common law. Andrew demonstrates a high degree of ignorance by assuming that everything is in the right order when signing for the repaired car. Andrew ought to sign the invoice after receiving the car rather than before receiving the repaired one. It will give him high chances and evidence of claiming for the damages as well as the action of law. However, the ignorance in him makes him liable for his car even though the causes of damage come from the Smith’s Auto (OSBORNE, 2007).

References
KEENAN, D. J., & RICHES, S. (2007). Business law. Harlow, Pearson Longman.
OSBORNE, P. H. (2007). The law of torts. Toronto, Irwin Law.
PARSONS, T. (2011). The law of contracts. Boston, Little, Brown, and Co.