Management Law Essay

  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24x7 Online Help
  • No AI Generated Content
- +
35% Off
£ 6.69
Estimated Cost
£ 4.35
13 Pages 3281Words

Essay - Management Law Assignment 


This essay is based on the various legal issues that arise due course of action of business translation. Here, in this case, it has been found that the law of contract, law of tort, motor vehicle act and the case of defamation are involved. In the concerned case study, the contract for organic beef and the literal mentioning of the same in the contract is observed to be the main issue. Other legal contingencies such as defamation of the company, provocative approach of Bruce to the newly trained car driver, the occurrence of an accident and the trauma of Roger’s wife are the repercussions of the unconsolidated contract.

Business Issue faced by Bruce

Trust issue has been found in the case study. The breach of trust can be observable in the business interaction between Bruce and Jenny who is the manager of High Moor Farm. Bruce has firstly approached Jenny and promised to buy organic beef from her farm. After getting economically feasible business opportunities from Roger, Bruce broke his promise. This created a serious trust issue between Jenny and Bruce, which is not appropriate for any business prospects (Martín-Casals, 2019). On the other hand, the same trust issue was observable in the business interaction between Bruce and Roger. There was indeed no mention of organic beef in the contract, but the verbal assurance from Roger is also noticeable. Therefore, from the business point of view breach of trust due to a breach of verbal promises is noticed here as the business issue created and faced by Bruce. Reputation is also important for the business prospects, which has been challenged in this case, study. The reputation of a chain of organic food shops operated by Bruce has been deteriorated by the supply of non-organic beef by Roger. The reputation of Bruce was also impacted by the same (Cooper and Kirk, 2021). This is all due to the misconception of the contract made between the parties. In the contract, there is no mention of supplying organic beef. Based on the verbal assurance, the contract has been made. This lacuna in the contract restricted the enforceability of the contract by Bruce. Therefore, from the legal point of view, this contract is incomplete void ab initio by various existing case laws.

Financial losses have been incurred due to the first shipment of the non-organic beef products as the payment has already been done by Bruce and repayment of the same is not accepted by Roger. Apart from that, the un-estimated customers will be lost for supplying non-organic beef. This has negative financial implications for Bruce in his chain of organic food shops (Rühl, 2021). The medical cost due to an accident at the entrance of Green Lane Farm is also noticeable. This will create a serious setback in Bruce’s bank account. Health deterioration due to an accident at the farmhouse of Roger has impacted the working efficiency of Bruce, who now only works for a few hours. This has a serious business loss. The appointment of an alternative manager may fill the vacancy but may not work efficiently as done by Bruce. The spinal and back injury faced by Bruce has long term medical implications which create a financial burden (, 2022). Efficiency could be reduced and the overall prominence, revenue and market access of the chain of shops operated by Bruce. On the other hand, Roger’s wife has also faced Post Traumatic Stress Disorder due to an accident. Therefore, it has been noticed that business issues are occurred due to the consideration of the contract between Bruce and Roger as both have been negatively impacted by the accidents (Matulionyte, 2019). The financial burden due to medical contingencies has equally created a financial burden on Bruce and Roger which further created a negative impact on their businesses.

Contract and tort law related rules applicable for managing this issue

Chapter 1, which is the formation of a contract, sub-clause 1 of English contract law, says that a contract is an agreement of obligations for the contents that are enforced or recognised by law. Here, verbally promised contents does not recognise by this statute. The given case study has not mentioned, in any clause, the content called organic beef. Therefore, Bruce cannot enforce the contract in a court of law (Giliker, 2018). Furthermore, he would be financially liable for dismantling the same contract which has been generally mentioned in any contract according to the Sale and Supply of Goods Act of 1994 (, 2022). The written agreement has been accepted by Bruce and according to the evidence act of the UK; the piece of contract document can be enforced by Roger to extract financial remuneration from Bruce. Chapter 4, contractual intention, in its sub-clause 20 of the same contract act says that a contract is not binding on the parties if it does not make for legal intentions. Therefore, parties must intend on a legally binding clause of the contract. Consequently, Bruce is legally bound for the contract and the orientation for dismantling the contract arises from the legal consequence. The liability clause cannot be excluded from the contract according to section 12 of the sales of goods act, 1979. This is also substantiated by section 2 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act created in 1982.

The legal issue of defamation has also been observed in this case study. The supplying of non-organic beef to Bruce is a serious defamation issue against Roger. Here, as well the unmodified and verbal pronunciation of supplying the organic beef to Bruce does not make any sense for the court. Defamation Act of 2013 has specifically said that business defamation cannot be considered unless the verbal or written statement has been made by the accused (, 2022). Here, no written and verbal act has been evident from Roger and the whole reduction in the prestige of the company is due to stereotyping conceived of the customers (Witting, 2021. Though the verbal promise has made long term serious harm to Bruce, lack of documentary evidence, Bruce cannot demand a fine or remuneration from Roger. One thing should be noted here, that sub-clause 2 of the same statute says that if the reputation of a body of trade for making a profit does not consider as serious harm unless it causes or is likely to cause financial loss (Khan et al. 2019). Therefore, Bruce cannot make a consolidated statement of how many customers have been lost for the verbal misguiding of product specifications by Roger. Therefore, no punishment of fines can be incurred from Roger.

Considering the Road Traffic Act of 1988, the chapter on proactive measures states the regulation regarding seatbelts and other safety measures (Hacker et al. 2020). It has been found that while in the car Bruce did not wear seatbelts. On the other hand, the driver of the car was wearing a seatbelt. According to section 1 of the said law, persons who are driving or riding the car must use a seat belt for safety. Otherwise, it will be considered a crime. It has to codify the sentence of confining for 2 years along with a fine decided by the judge of the case for non-compliance with the law. Therefore, it can be said that Bruce is guilty of not wearing a seatbelt while riding the car. This attracts legal consequences. On the other hand, the actions of the driver of the car, Jackie, have fallen under vicarious liability (Grabovich et al. 2021). This concept of law says that, if a person is committed to something by the influence of others, the other must be guilty of the acts committed by the person. Jackie has driven the car due to the influence of subordination under Bruce. Bruce was drunk and asked Jackie to drop him at the farm Roger. Jackie did not have any option but to follow the dictation of the boss. Under trained Jackie also inform Bruce the same, but Bruce still asked to drive. Therefore, the complete responsibility of the accident should be upon Bruce. Therefore, Jackie can approach the court of law for justice and financial remuneration from Bruce (Brownsword et al. 2019). The concept and applicability of the law of Tort are observed here. Common tort applied in the land of the UK is also known as the tort of negligence. This is imposed an obligation on the commit for not breaching the duty but accidentally happen something by them. This does not impose a legal obligation on the perpetrator but imposed legal responsibility on the employer of the particular duty. Here, Jackie is an employee who conducts the duty of driver under the influence or job ordained by the employer Bruce.

Application of the mentioned laws

The above-mentioned laws have application in the concerned case study. The contract law has implications in the contract between Roger and Bruce. The very contract cannot be considered as consolidated as no legal obligation has been made. The contract itself is void due to not mentioning the nature of the specific commodity called organic beef. The accident by the driver Jackie also falls in the realm of vicarious liability, which put the responsibility on Bruce (, 2022). Apart from that, the motor vehicle act of the UK is also founded as a legal aspect that has already been evaluated. Now, the application of the above laws is described in the following.

There are numerous cases related to the breach of “Contract Law” that helps in understanding the given situation properly. Some of the cases are.

The case “Balfour vs. Balfour[1919]”, is the first case relating to the breach of the contract law. The case was that the husband who works outside the country decided to send the wife “maintenance payments” to his wife. When the agreement was being drafted, they were happily married. The relationship was becoming worse day-by-day forcing a divorce. As a result of which there was a case. The judge of the Supreme Court of the UK analyzed the evidence properly and gave the verdict that the agreement cannot be considered a contract as there was no legal relationship between the husband and the wife after the divorce. This case is similar to the case of Bruce vs Jenny, High Moor Farm where the contract was signed between the two for the supply of organic products to Bruce. Later on, Bruce refused to fulfill the contract as he heard that Roger manager of Green Lane Farm is providing organic beef at an affordable price.

As per the case of “Rose and Frank Co vs. Crompton and Brother Ltd[1925]” stated that Rose and Frank Co was one of the distributors of JR Crompton’s “carbon paper product”. The contract stated a clause that was neither legal nor formal agreement and was just an “honourable pledge” among the companies. The British company, before completing the orders breached the contract and refused to give them goods. As a result, a case was filed. The judge after examining the evidence gave the verdict that since the agreement is not a legal contract as these documents did not create any “legal interest” and this was constituted to have mutual consent. This case helps understand the situation of Bruce vs. Roger, where a contract between the two parties was made to provide Bruce with organic products. Roger breached the contract by providing Bruce with non-organic products Bruce which hampered the business of Bruce quite badly.

The case of “Donoghue vs. Stevenson[1932]”, is one of the famous cases related to the breach of the “tort law”. According to the case, the claimant, Donoghue filed a personal injury against the manufacturer when a snail emerged from a bottle of ginger beer as she sprinkled over her ice cream. As a result, a case was filed in court. The judge after studying the evidence gave a verdict against the manufacturer stating that the manufacturer should take reasonable precautions to avoid acts that might fairly harm other people. The verdict also stated that compensation should be provided to the people who are being injured from the act. This case law helped in understanding the case of Bruce vs. Tractor’s owner as the tractor gets damaged from the accident that was by Jackie and Bruce while they were driving to see Roger talk to him about the breach of contract that Roger made by selling non-organic products. This case is also helpful in understanding a similar type of situation between the cases of Roger’s wife vs. Bruce where Roger’s wife suffers from PTSD after seeing her friend die in the car crash. As a result, compensation should be provided for the treatment.


The essay tends to understand the case study that Bruce faces while making a contract to expand his business. One of the main issues that have been highlighted in the case study is the breach of trust. The essay helped in understanding the first point where the breach of trust has occurred is between Bruce and Jenny who is the manager of High Moor Farm. The essay helps to understand the first case in which the breach of contract happened when Bruce after making a contract with Jenny to buy organic products immediately breached the contract and decided to buy the organic products from Roger who is the manager of Green Lane Farm. This is a breach of the Contract Law (1990). The essay tells about another breach of the Contract Law (1990) that has happened between Roger and Bruce. The contract that was breached was not in written form but in verbal form. As a result of which Roger, even though a verbal agreement was made to supply Bruce with organic products gave him inorganic products hampering the business of Bruce and this show a misconception of the contract among the parties. The essay also helps in understanding the breach of Tort Law. The essay sees a situation where Jackie who just got her license was asked by Bruce to give a ride to Roger's place to talk about the breach of the contract. Bruce was unable to drive as he had two glasses of wine. This caused Jackie to drive Bruce to Roger's place where she committed an accident causing the tractor to be damaged. This also caused severe injuries to Bruce, as he was not wearing a seatbelt, thus breaching the Tort Law. The essay also sees the breaching of the Tort Law in the case of Roger's wife who suffered from PTSD after seeing her friend die in the accident thus demanding compensation for her treatment. The breach of the Tort Law happened when the tractor's owner has demanded the repairing costs but he was not given. The essay tends to understand the issue as a misconception of the contract between Roger and Bruce that forced them to suffer a huge financial burden, which also hampered both the businesses. The essay also stated that the fact the contracts that were being made between Bruce and Roger is not to consider a contract since the “sub-clause 1” of the English Contract Act does not define verbal promises as laws. The essay also tends to understand how the “liability clause” can not be excluded according to “Section 12” of the “Sales of Goods and Services Act, 1979”.

The essay helps in explaining similar cases that have happened over the past years that tends to explain the situations as explained in the case study. These cases helped in understanding the importance of contract law and the tort law in case of any breaching of the laws thus can provide aid to those in getting justice against those who have misused or breached the contract.


Case Laws

Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 KB 571

Rose & Frank Co v JR Crompton & Bros Ltd[1924] UKHL 2

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562


Cooper, T. and Kirk, E., (2021). Contract Law. Routledge.

Martín-Casals, M. ed., (2019). The borderlines of tort law: interactions with contract law. Intersentia.

Giliker, P. (2018) ‘Examining English contract law in the light of Brexit–an end to the European dream?. In Essays in Memory of Professor Jill Poole (pp. 14-32). Informa Law from Routledge.


Burns, K., (2018) “‘In this Day and Age’: Social Facts, Common Sense and Cognition in Tort Law Judging in the United Kingdom”. Journal of Law and Society, vol. 45 no. 2, pp.226-253.

Khan, M., Bae, J.H., Choi, S.B. and Han, N.H., (2019) ‘Good faith principles in Islamic contract law: a comparative study with Western contract law’ Journal of International Trade & Commerce, vol. 15 no. 6, pp.143-159.

Matulionyte, R., (2019). ‘Empowering authors via fairer copyright contract law’. University of New South Wales Law Journal, The42(2), pp.681-718.

Rühl, G., (2021). ‘Smart (legal) contracts, or: Which (contract) law for smart contracts?’. In Blockchain, law and governance (pp. 159-180). Springer, Cham.

Witting, C., (2021). ‘TORT LAW AS REGULATION IN THE FINANCIAL INDUSTRY’. In Financial Advice and Investor Protection. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Online articles

P Hacker, R Krestel, S Grundmann… - … Intelligence and Law, (2020). ‘Explainable AI under contract and tort law: legal incentives and technical challenges’. Available at: [Accessed 1st March, 2022]

R Brownsword - European Business Organization Law Review, (2019). ‘Regulatory fitness: Fintech, funny money, and smart contracts’. Available at: [Accessed 1st March, 2022]

T Grabovich - Baltic Journal of Economic Studies, (2021). ‘INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ASPECTS OF ECONOMIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATES’. Available at: [Accessed 1st March, 2022]

Websites, (2022) ‘Introduction to English Tort Law’. Available at: <> [Accessed 1st March, 2022], (2022)Contract vs tort. Available at: < > [Accessed 1st March, 2022], (2022) Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. Available at: <[Accessed 1st March, 2022], 2022. Defamation Act 2013. Available at:[Accessed 1st March, 2022]


35% OFF
Get best price for your work
  • 54000+ Project Delivered
  • 500+ Experts 24*7 Online Help

offer valid for limited time only*