The contract law is where legally binding agreement between two or more persons by which rights are acquired by one or more to act or loose something. Four elements of a contract are offer, acceptance (agreement), consideration and intention. Offer element comprises bilateral offer (promise for a promise), unilateral offer (promise for an act) and invitation to treat (invite somebody to make an offer). In bilateral offer exists when the offerer knows whom s/he is dealing with; an unilateral offer where an offer is given to the whole worldwide and there is more information/requirement in this offer.
An advert or display is usually regarded as an invitation to treat. In Fisher v Bell [1961] , a flick knife was shown in the window with a price tag on it in the defendant’s shop. The claimant accused the defendant of offering the knife for sale, which was against the “Restriction of Offensive Weapon Act 1959”. It is judged that where goods are displayed in a shop together with a price label, such display is treated as an invitation to treat by the seller. The Bart’s case of displaying the painting in the shop window is similar to Fisher case, which is an invitation to treat since this is not promise for an act (unilateral offer), but an action inviting an entity to make an offer.
The Law of tort is where there is a breach of duty fixed by law committed against an individual (including companies), which gives rise to an action. Regarding the Chain of Causation, the judge will look at whether the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant, whether the defendant breaches that duty of care; is there damages; and whether these damages were a direct result of the breach or too remote. Historically, there was no tort of negligence prior to the case Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] . In this case the claimant sued the defendant - the ginger beer‘s manufacturer for producing a bottle of beer containing a snail decomposition that she drank and suffered from gastroenteritis and a serious shock. As a result, the neighbour principal is created through this case. It is the defendant’s obligation to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which can be foreseen as being likely to injure your neighbour. And the person who is so closely or directly affected by the defendant’s act is that neighbour. Following that principal, Donoghue was compensated for the manufacturer’s negligence.
In addition, Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] is another outstanding case to clarify the duty of care test. The fact is that the appellant sued the respondent for the substantial damages due to the defendant negligently preparing the annual report. The judge then stated three steps to determine by