Law Practice Exam Harvard Case Solution & Analysis

Law Practice Exam Harvard Case Study 

Question Number 1

Yes in the current scenario Fernando has breached his duty of care because he was unable to take an appropriate care but it was misrepresented to the owners that the care would be taken only to continue the contract. Therefore, ‘Negligent Misrepresentation’ was done by Fernando as he owned a duty of care to the car owners but that was breached by him since no appropriate care was taken by him. Despite knowing his inability to perform his duty, only on basis of his confidence over his driving skills he resulted in damages to the car owner. If he knew has was not trained to drive mini scooper cars, at least he would have let the other party know about his inability, instead he, without any prior practice did drive and damaged the other party. In this scenario there involves ‘Repudiation’ from Fernando which refers to an individual’s inability or unwillingness to perform the task or the contract. Fernando was also involved in this repudiation as he was almost but not fully trained to take care of the cars and repair them. So the represented i.e. the car owner in this case had to suffer the losses whereas the representator i.e. Fernando breached his contract. Recent studies relevant to the Negligent Misrepresentation includes Hedley Byrne Ltd v Heller & Partners [1964] AC 465.

Question Number 2

Fernando definitely owned a lower duty to care to the car owners although he had been involved in the negligent misrepresentation but the higher misrepresentation that is the ‘Fraudulent misrepresentation’ was done by Umberto who stated that Fernando would conveniently take care of the cars but his statements proved to be wrong when the incident happened and damages were done to the other party. Therefore it was Umberto who owned more duty to care than that of Fernando. According to ‘Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 per Lord Herschell’ Umberto was involved in the ‘Fraudulent Representation’ because just for the sake of successful induction of the contract he gave wrong statement to the owners that their cars would be taken care of. Despite knowing that Fernando was not fully trained to perform the task, he tried to relax the other party i.e. the car owners, although his statement was material and hold significance for the successful induction of the contract. His statement was false and it was proved to be a fraud when the incident happened depicting to the car owners that the false representation was done by Umberto without caring it to be true.

Question Number 3

Although, Michael had no concerns with the contract between the members of Mini Cooper Racing club and Umberto, neither he had any concerns with the breach of their contract. But in this case it could be analyzed that Michael was in the town to attend a music concert whose 500 tickets were already sold out. Apart from this, he was about to be paid around $15000 for his performance at the concert. Besides that, he was also expecting to earn from other assignments such as giving teachings at seminars etc. But because of the incident that happened, his hand was crashed and he was no more able to perform for all of his contracts and assignments. His contracts were breached because of his inability to perform i.e. ‘Repudiation’. Although it was not his fault but due to this incident the concert owner as well as Michael both suffered damage. The concert owner even could claim for his damage’s against Michael according to ‘Robinson v Harman (1848) 154 ER 363, 365 (approved by the High Court in Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64, 80)’ that if a party suffer any loss because of breach of contract, then the part can claim for his losses occurred from the party involved in contractual breach which in this case is Michael. Because Michael was not at fault he can claim for his losses from Umberto and Fernando. Because it was because of their misrepresentation that he had to face the damages as well as losses….

This is just a sample partial case solution. Please place the order on the website to order your own originally done case solution.

How We Work?
Just email us your case materials and instructions to order@thecasesolutions.com and confirm your order by making the payment here

Related Case Solutions & Analyses:

BLUE MOUNTAIN RESORTS LIMITED: THE NIGHT SKIING Kaspi.kz IPO NORTHWEST SECURITY SERVICES CASE Bain Capital: Outback Steakhouse Euro Zone Convergence, Divergence and then what? “Porcini’s Pronto”: “Great Italian cuisine without the wait!” Monmouth Inc M&S Assignment REGTECH at HSBC Habitat for Humanity Research Paper