Answer the questions below and support your points using case law not Essay

Answer the questions below and support your points using case law not the textbook references - Essay Example Similarly, an advertisement or brochure does not constitute an offer, but only an attempt to obtain an offer. However, the display of goods in a shop is an invitation to treat. Application In Harvey v Facey [1893] AC 552, it was held that it was insufficient to just provide a statement regarding the price. In this case the plaintiff had asked the defendant, by means of a telegram, whether he would sell the Bumper Hall Pen and to quote the lowest cash price. The reply was to be given by telegram to the plaintiff. To this the defendant replied that the lowest price would be ? 900. In reply the plaintiff conveyed his consent and stated that he would purchase it for that price and asked the defendant to send the title deeds of that piece of land. The court held that there was no contract between these parties, as the mere statement of price did not constitute an offer and was nothing more than the provision of information. In Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6, the Appellate Court deemed the shop sign to be an invitation to treat. In this case, the issue considered was when a sale was completed in a self service shop. The court held that the sale was completed when the medicine had been selected and taken to the shop assistant, who then accepted it and completed the contract. The display of goods on the shelves of the shop was not an offer but merely an invitation to treat. This was reiterated by the court in Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, in which Lord Chief Justice Parker held that the mere display of a knife with a price tag in a shop window did not constitute an offer for sale. In this case, the shop had displayed a prohibited type of knife in a shop window. The legislation in force had prohibited the offer of such items for sale. This was deemed to be an invitation to treat and not an offer by the learned chief justice. Conclusion Offer can become a contract after its acceptance. An Invitation to Trea t is not an offer, which can be accepted, and is merely an invitation for offers. Question 2 Explain the standard of care owed by one person to another in the tort of negligence Issue The standard of care owed by one person to another in the tort of negligence. Rule The standard of care owed by one person to another in torts, is based on the notions of reasonableness and foreseeability. Contributory negligence in the context of personal injury and death relates to the failure of a person, usually the plaintiff, to adopt reasonable measure to promote safety, which contributes to the injury suffered by that person. Damages awarded by the Australian courts are reduced to the extent of the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Application There is a clear distinction between the notions of reasonableness and foreseeability. Thus in Bolton v Stone [1951] AC 850, their Lordships ruled that although it was foreseeable for injury to occur due to being hit by a cricket ball that had been struck over the boundary fence, it was very much unlikely to happen, and that this was sufficient justification for the respondents to ignore the risk. In general, it is unreasonable to undertake a risk that is foreseeable. However, when the chances of the risk taking place are very meagre, a reasonable person will undertake the risk. Another major consideration relates to the seriousness of the injury caused. Thus, in Paris v Stepney Borough Council