Brook did not follow the contract terms signed with the Easter and Co
Brook as the owner of the business would have read the standard terms offered by Esther and Co. on the agreed overdraft facility and avoid any negligence which would lead to the breach of the contract. She could have also known that there were penalties involved in case of a breach of a contract. She could have checked her bank balance and reconcile her account so that she get to know any time her purchases exceeds the agreed overdraft amount.
Brook did not follow the contract terms signed with the Easter and Co. which stated that she will be charged of any overdraft facility exceeding £1000 ,if done without agreeing with Esther and Co. If I was brook I would read the standard terms of the contract carefully and check bank balance in the account before withdrawing or making any purchase and if I notice the purchase of the horse will exceed the agreed overdraft facility, I will engage Esther and Co. to ensure that I am not charged extra fee.
The case for Brook and Esther and Co. followed a battle of the forms where the two businesses negotiated the terms of a contract and each party wants to apply contract on the basis of its own terms. Brook did not follow the agreed standard terms with Esther and Co. so she has to accept the offer on the basis of its own standard terms. In this situation, Esther and Co. will win the battle and Brook will have to pay the damages since she breached the contract with Easter & Co. Also there was negligence on the side of brook since after buying the horse she took 30 days without checking bank balances after which she received a letter from Esther and Co.
For Esther and Co. to succeed in a claim for negligence caused by Brook as result of breach of contract which led loss, Esther and CO. proved that the Brook was subject to a duty of contacting Esther& Co. before purchasing the horse which exceeded the agreed overdraft amount, and that there was a breach of that contract, and that Brook’s breach of their duty of care caused a financial loss to Esther and Co. and she was right to be charged £300 for the 30 days she stayed without noticing that she had overdrawn over and above the agreed amount in the overdraft
In the second scenario, the act of Mrs. Brook teeing the horse on a pole at Mr. Frank parking without taking into consideration the red sign amounts to contravening the law of Torts. A tort is a standard error resulting in undue suffering or harm. Brook suffers both economic and emotional loss. These are well covered in the law of tort, as it is not only limited to legal injuries. Brook is likely to face total loss due to his acts of negligence.
On the other side, upon brook filing a petition as the plaintiff, also referred to as the injured party due to the horse’s loss, she can prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the loss of the horse was due to Mr. Frank’s employees. The tort resulted from acts of negligence of spraying the area with disinfectant. From the tort law, Brook, the plaintiff, need only to prove that the death of the horse resulted from the disinfectant. In this case, the court can impute strict liability to Mr. Frank as spraying was inherently dangerous; this discourages reckless behavior and losses uncalled for by ensuring that the defendants take all possible precautions. When Brook pursues a claim under a tort, she will be interested in the remedy which is seeking after an award of damages. In tort, costs are typically granted to bring back the plaintiff to the initial situation they were before the tort not happened.
Two categories of tort damage the plaintiff can be accorded are the compensatory and punitive. Brook would be more likely to get the Punitive damages, which does not reinstate the plaintiff to the original state. Still, they only work to reform or deter the defendant and comparable persons from engaging in an action resulting in the harm of others. Brook, this damage will be offered to the fact that the employees acted in a deliberately malicious, careless, or exceptionally irresponsible manner.
References
Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, (1983) 461 U.S. 574, 103 S. Ct. 2017, 76 L. Ed. 2d 157
Lemon v. Kurtzman, (1971) 403 U.S. 602, 91 S. Ct. 2105, 29 L. Ed. 2d 745 (1971).