Legal Issues Involving The Lame Duck Restaurant And Li

1a. Negligence of Chef Rupali

1. Johnny has been training a new chef, Rupali, in the kitchen of his restaurant. Johnny thinks Rupali is almost ready to prepare food for customers. Johnny and Rupali arrange for a small group of CDU students and their friends to come to the restaurant one evening, when the restaurant is ordinarily closed, to try Rupali's food. Johnny explains to the guests that Rupali is being left alone in the kitchen to prepare the meal by himself, without supervision. Rupali prepares a delicious three-course meal for the guests, including a daring and innovative durian pie. Unfortunately, Rupali does not peel the durian fruit before putting it in the pie, and the sharp thorns cause three of his guests moderate injury before everybody else realises that the durian pie should be avoided. 
(a) Has Rupali breached any legal duty of care?

(b) Did Rupali owe a lower duty of care to the guests due to inexperience?

(c) Is Johnny vicariously liable for anything that occurred? 

2. The Lame Duck Restaurant owned by Johnny appoints a sales and marketing representative (Summer) to design and launch a new website for the restaurant. Summer is very bright and her design looks amazing. As the website is exceptional, Johnny decides to revamp the pricing system and put a 15% mark-up on all food. Summer develops a beautiful design for the new pricing system and posts it online. Two weeks later after the prices are changed, Li books the wedding using the menu he found on one of the tables. Summer mistakenly accepts the booking, asking Abu from accounts to accept the deposit and finalise the invoice. Li calls, accepts the quoted price, pays the deposit and books the date for the wedding. The same day, Li sends out invitations to all her friends studying at CDU. The day before the banquet, the error in the quotation is discovered. Johnny gets involved, calls the customer and says that the Lame Duck Restaurant cannot host the wedding because the quotation was made in error. However, Li insists that 'we have a contract' and says that under the law the Lame Duck Restaurant must host the wedding banquet. 

(a) Advise Johnny, whether the contract exists.

(b) Was there a mistake? If there was, what kind of mistake?

(c) Explain possible legal consequences if the Lame Duck Restaurant is obliged to provide the premises for the wedding, but refuses to do so.

Whether Rupali breached legal duty of care under the tort of negligence

Duty of care is defined as the legal responsibility of the person in which they need to avoid causing harm to another person in those situations when such harm is foreseeable in nature. Duty of care exists when there is sufficient closeness between the parties.

In context of determining whether duty of care breached, Court determines the standard of care expected from the person in those situations. In other words, defendant acted as per the standard of care or in similar manner that would be acted by any reasonable person in similar situations (Legal Service Commission, no date).

In this case, food prepared by Rupali is consumed by the guests and they directly get affected by the food which is prepared by Rupali, because of which, there is relationship of closeness between them. In case law Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562, Court stated that if one arty directly affects from the action of another arty then relationship of closeness exist.

In this case, duty of care exists between the parties, and Rupali is under obligation to avoid causing harm to the guests. In this, it is expected from Rupali to take such actions which meet the standard of care that is peel the fruit before making the dish, but she fails to meet the standard of care. Therefore, it can be said that Rupali breach duty of care.

Conclusion

In this case, Rupali breach the duty of care exists between the parties.

Whether Rupali owns any lower duty of care towards the guests because of her inexperience

Section 10 of the Civil Liability Act defines the extended regulations in context of the standard of care, which means, it further guides the Court while determining the standard of care owned by the defendant towards the plaintiff. In other words, following individual owns lower duty of care towards the plaintiff-

• In case individual take the actions in the situations of the emergency.
• In case individual is the child or the individual with the disability (Roynette, no date).

It must be noted that, individual in the effect of intoxication does not own the lower duty of care towards the plaintiff. In similar manner, if plaintiff is under the effect of the intoxication then also defendant own normal duty of care towards the plaintiff (Queensland law handbook, no date).

Rupali does not own any lower duty of care towards the guests, because lower duty of care exist only in those cases in which individual take the actions in emergency situations or individual is the child or the individual with the disability.

1b. Duty of Care owned by Rupali

Rupali does not fall in both the situations, and inexperience of Rupali cannot be considered as sufficient ground to satisfy the criteria of the lower duty of care. Therefore, Rupali does not own lower duty of care because of   her inexperience towards the guests.

Conclusion

In this case, Rupali does not own lower duty of care because of   her inexperience towards the guests.

Whether John is vicarious liable for the breach of duty of care conducted by Rupali towards the guests

Vicarious liability occurred in those situations when one individual is held liable for the negligence conducted by any other individual. Generally, vicarious liability occurred in those situations when there is relationship of employer and employee and both the parties carrying out their duties. In maximum number of cases, employer will be vicariously held liable for the negligence of the employee (ALRC, no date).

In the present case, Johnny is the employer of the Rupali, because Rupali get her training under the Johnny, and because of this Johnny is vicariously liable for the negligent actions conducted by the Rupali. Vicarious liability occurred in those situations when one individual is held liable for the negligence conducted by any other individual.

This can be understood with the help of the case law Miller v South Australia (1980) 24 SASR 416, in which employer of the teacher of the individual school will be held liable. In this case, Court held that, school was held liable for all the injuries sustained by the 4-year old boy who escaped from his class.

In this case also, Johnny and Rupali shares the relationship of employer and employee and because of this Johnny can be held liable for the negligent actions conducted by the Rupali.

Conclusion

In this case, Johnny is the employer of the Rupali, and this is the reason because of which vicarious liability occurred in those this situation.

Whether there is any contract on art of the Lame Duck Restaurant and Li

The important element of the contract is the agreement, and this agreement consist two important elements that are offer and acceptance. Other important elements of contract are consideration and intention of parties to create legal relations. Following are some important conditions which must be exist in terms of creating the valid contract-

• Offer must be given by the offeror and it must be accepted by the offeree.
• Consideration must hold some monetary value.
• There must be intention of the contractual parties to create legal relations with each other, and intention exists in case of commercial contracts (ACL, no date).

It must be noted, in case any of the above stated elements is not present then such contract is not considered as valid contract.

1c. Vicarious liability of Johnny

In this case, all the essential elements of the valid contract are resent, as all the these elements are discussed-

• Li offer to book the venue and similar offer is accepted by the summer, which means there is offer and acceptance and this leads to agreement.
• Valid consideration is also present in this case.
• This is contract of commercial nature, and because of this parties intended to create legal relations with each other.

It can be said on the basis of above grounds that valid contract exists between the parties.

Conclusion

There is valid contract between the Li and lame Duck restaurant.

Whether there is any mistake under the contract exist between the parties

Unilateral mistakes are more under the contract law, and it occurs in those cases when one party related to the contract conduct any mistake in the contract, but other party does not conduct any mistake. Common law does not provide any remedy to the mistaken party in context of the unilateral mistake, but equity provides the remedy to the mistaken party in context of the unilateral mistake, and as per this remedy. As per the remedy given by the equity, in case non mistaken party is aware about the mistake conducted by the other party but still does not disclose the same then mistaken arty can cancel the contract. In other words, if there is any improper conduct on the part of the unmistaken party then it is their duty to aware the mistaken party about the same and in case they fails to do so then mistaken party holds the right to cancel the contract (ACL, no date).

In the present case, summer marketing executive of the lame Duck restaurant conduct mistake in context of the price of the contract they entered with Li. This mistake can be considered as unilateral mistake, because it occurs in those cases when one party related to the contract conduct any mistake in the contract, but other party does not conduct any mistake.

In this case also only summer made the mistake about the consideration of the contract and such mistake is not made by the Li, and because of this this mistake is considered as unilateral mistake. Similar situation occurred in case law Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422, in which Court defined the mistake as unilateral mistake.

It must be noted that, Li is not aware about the mistake because of which there is valid contract exists between the Li and restaurant.

Conclusion

Yes there is mistake on the art of lame duck restaurant and such mistake is classified as unilateral mistake.

Whether there are any legal consequences if Lame Duck Restaurant refuses to give their banquet for wedding

In case any party fails to fulfil their obligation under the contract then it is deemed as breach of contract, and following are remedies in context of the breach of contract-

Damages- plaintiff can seek damages for the loss suffered by them, as damages are considered as the substitute of performance.

Specific performance- this is the remedy given by the equity and as per this remedy, breaching party is ordered by the Court to fulfil their obligations under the contract as defined by Court (ACL, no date).

In this case, Li can seek the damages for the non-performance of the contract, or she can seek the specific performance of the contract.

Conclusion

Therefore, in this Li can seek damages and specific performance under the contract.

References

ACL, (no date). Agreement [online]. Available at:  https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-agreement.html. [Accessed 24th August 2018].

ACL, (no date). Intention to create legal relations [online]. Available at: https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/formation-intention.html. [Accessed 24th August 2018].

ACL. Mistake, (no date) [online]. Available at:  https://www.australiancontractlaw.com/law/avoidance-mistake.html. [Accessed on 24th August 2018].

ALRC, (no date) . The right to sue in tort [online]. Available at:  https://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/right-sue-tort. [Accessed 24th August 2018].

Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562.

Legal Service Commission, (no date). Negligence [online]. Available at:  https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch01s05.php. [Accessed 24th August 2018].

Miller v South Australia(1980) 24 SASR 416.

Queensland law handbook, (2018). Duty of Care [online]. Available at:  https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/health-and-wellbeing/accidents-and-injury/duty-of-care/. [Accessed 24th August 2018].

Roynette, K. (no date). Drawing the Line of the Scope of the Duty of Care in American Negligence and French Fault-Based Tort Liability, Journal of Civil Law Studies, 8(1).

Taylor v Johnson (1983) 151 CLR 422.