In order to have full access of this Article, please email us on thedocumentco@hotmail.co.uk
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 employ 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 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 matter of design frame and his warning regarding that design frame and finally, investigation report regarding ascertaining the causes of fatal accident.
First, 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, when company finance officials mailed him the contract document, there is mention of contractual obligation towards indemnity in email. Again Law of Obligations and Evidence 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 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 site? At construction site material, machinery and labour is 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 building?
Third aspect is the nature of Tom’s communication with company. How and in whatways, he communicates his concern to company? What channel he uses and what about…
Recent Comments