This article consists of 15 pages and 3449 words. In order to have full access to this article, email us at thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk

Ref No: 1329

Case Study Analysis

Law of Obligations and Evidence: The unhappy event took place in one of the WED projects on which Tom is working as a consultant architect. Tom is not a permanent employee of Budget Bricks. He has a contractual relationship with the company and in his contract, he agreed to indemnify his professional negligence. The given case highlights four issues at a different level of engagement of Tom with Budget Bricks.

First is his contract with the company and mode and of his acceptance of contractual obligations. Second, what relationship in principle he has with the company’s contractor Blue Sky which is also client and partner in work, third, nature of his communication with company’s officials on the matter of design frame and his warning regarding that design frame and finally, investigation report regarding ascertaining the causes of the fatal accident.

First, the company has enough evidence to establish the contractual obligation on Tom. He was too liable to his professional negligence if it really happened. During his contract finalization with Budget Bricks, there is no explicit response from Tom. His silence can be considered as acceptance.

However Law of Obligations and Evidence, when company finance officials mailed him the contract document, there is mention of contractual obligation towards indemnity in an email. Again Tom did not contradict or generate a different response. He replied in affirmative. This confirms the acceptance of contractual obligation and evidence become acceptable before the court of law. However, it is yet to be determined what kinds of negligence he has committed because investigation report suggests otherwise.

In second, what is the on-field relationship of Tom with company’s client Blue Sky Development, also a construction contractor and occupier of the site? At construction site material, machinery and labour are under control of the occupier. But some questions are to be settled before fixing responsibility.

Who holds authority in determining the best material? Who does actually procure the required stuff and labour? Who manages day-to-day activities?  Who is in real in-charge of construction work and what relation, both formal and informal, Tom has had with them. Is Tom has had a say in deciding quality of construction material and the way it is used in the building?

The third aspect is the nature of Tom’s communication with the company. How and in what ways, he communicates his concern to the company? What channel he uses and what about his warning about tiles? Is this a professional negligence or a different case? Does he have any record, either written or electronic, where he has communicated his concern to the company? Does he ever take his initial contract a serious one…?