Hello can you please review my grammar and correct me if I have made any mistakes.

I also attached the problem question so you can understand :)

Jodie's legal problems are whether Bruce's statement was a term or representation and what remedies she can pursue against Bruce. Secondly, whether Jodie sues Horsie and Co. and negotiates a settlement for breach of contract.

Jodie v Bruce

Negligent Misrepresentation

Jodie, a professional horse rider agreed to purchase a horse from Bruce. The primary objective was to participate in the upcoming horse-riding race. One of the conditions was that the horse was supposed to be free from hereditary illnesses. However, there was no written agreement between Jodie and Bruce on the matter. Bruce made an unambiguous verbal statement that the horse was healthy and thus Jodie was induced to purchase the horse, however the representation was false, therefore Jodie suffering the damages. Jodie can argue that Bruce's statement is actionable misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (MA 1967). Misrepresentation means a false statement made to a party on a specific fact.[1]A misrepresentation can be either negligent, fraudulent, or innocent. Negligent misrepresentation is when the presenter makes a statement carelessly or without fair justification for assuming the facts for reasonable reasons[2].Fraudulent misrepresentation is one that has been made intentionally[3], while innocent misrepresentation is when the defendant believes that the statement is true and has reasonable grounds to believe in its reality[4].

It can be argued that Bruce made an innocent misrepresentation as after the horse was purchased, Bruce took the horse to the vet which sent him a certificate stating that the horse was in good condition following testing. Therefore, when he made the statement of the horse's health to Jodie, he reasonably believed that the statement was true which is regarded as reasonable grounds as he put truthful dependence on the on the certificate provided by the vet.

However, this claim is likely to fail as at the time of statement when Jodie had entered into the contract and paid for the horse. Bruce had not received a certificate from the vet.

Therefore, in this circumstance Jodie may sue Bruce for Negligent Misrepresentation through s2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. When Jodie placed the order for the horse with Bruce, Bruce orally expressed to her that his horses are checked, and that a certificate of good health will be included from a vet. Jodie payed 20,000 for the horse after getting the verbal assurance from Bruce. Bruce made a careless and reckless statement saying that the horse was free from illness before receiving a certificate. Despite, him not having any evidence from at the time about the horse's health. Jodie was reliant on Bruce's statement and assurance of the horse's health status; she can argue that his statement was is what induced her to enter a contract

Provided this justification was satisfied by the courts, Jodie could claim damages for negligent misrepresentation using section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967. The burden of proof would fall on Bruce and he would have to prove that he 'had reasonable grounds for believing the statement' was true which would be difficult and unlikely to prove established inHoward Marine v Ogden[5].Therefore, Bruce is liable to compensate Jodie for all losses occurred directly from his statement,Royscot Trust Ltd[6]However, the damages must have been reasonably foreseeable.[7]Protected by s 2(2) of the MA Act 1967 it is likely that the courts would award damages in lieu of recission to Jodie, which includes her 20,000 for the horse.

Breach of Contractual Contract

Delivery being late- fail

A collateral contract is a writtenor oral agreement concluded by the original parties, or between a third party and an original party, as an additional or a side deal. Usually, this takes place before or at the same time that the first or key contract is made.[8]Lord Moulton established the principle of a collateral contract inHeilbut,Symons & Co v Buckleton[9]he used the example of"if you will make such and such a contract, I will give you one hundred pounds", is in every sense of the word a complete legal contract. It is collateral to the main contract, but each has its an independent existence".Explicating that oral contracts are binding contracts.[10]

Jodie can bring an action for breach of collateral contract against Bruce for violating the terms of their agreement. Bruce made a representation to her that the Horse was checked, and free of hereditary dieses. A collateral contract was generated before the main contract as she relied on this term and both parties expressly agreed to, thereforeshe was induced to buy it. This principle is exampled in the case ofDe Lassalle v. Guildford,[11]a collateral arrangement dispute in which the letter party rented a house to the former. The landlord decided to patch the drain prior to the tenant moving in. This pledge was considered a collateral contract by the judge, allowing the tenant to sue when he found out the drains had not been fixed as promised.[12]Which in this case is similar as it is evident that Jodie would have not purchased the horse, had she known it was not free from disease.

When a breach of contract arises, the innocent party is entitled, usually in the form of restitution, to make a suit in connection with the breach and seek compensation.[13]As long as the courts find that Jodie and Bruce's contract suffices the requirements for a collateral contract such as; being promissory, and consistent with the main contract. They may hold that a collateral contract was made and therefore, be enforced. InLane -v- O'Brien Homes Ltd (2204). The courts held that the claimant was entitled to damages. Jodie endured a loss due to the breach of contract by Bruce the horses undisclosed illness affected its speed, compromising her chance to win the prize. In this case, Bruce could try to argue The parol evidence rule, which is that evidence may not be presented to differ an express agreement(Jacob V Batavia),since there is no written agreement exhibiting that they entered into a contract. However, a collateral concract is an exception to this rule and an oral collateral contract can exists simultaneously with a written one. (Evans & Son LTD v Andrea Merozario Ltd

Although, this caused her to have a loss it is unlikely for the courts to award her damages for the race. The best remedy for Jodie would be to rescind the contract and claim for a refund of 20,000 for the horse

https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf/3924755-dawson.pdf\

Jodie v Vet

Negligent Misstatement

The Vet may be liable for negligent misstatement, for issuing a certificate confirming that the horse was in good health and free from hereditary disease. When it was discovered, that the horse did in fact have a hereditary illness which resulted with its speed being affected. A negligent misstatement is a common law tort and is applied where the defendant owes a duty of care to a claimant but makes a careless of false representation to the claimant, who depends on it and as a result undergoes a loss as a consequence for the misleading statement.[14]In order for Jodie to bring a successful claim of negligent misstatement against the Vet as at the time of the vetting she was the owner of the horse, Jodiemust establish to the courts that there was a duty of care owed to her, which was not intended to cause harm, and that Vet breached the duty of care. The information provided by the Vet was relied upon by Jodie and as a result caused her injuries, the Vet is a professional with special knowledge in the subject and it was reasonable for Jodie to rely on her statement of certification. The Vet fulfils the requirements for negligence misstatement as she breached a duty by failing to exercise reasonable care in fulfilling the duty.[15]Hereditary dieses can be detected at the earliest time since it is inherited genetically. If the Vet fulfilled their duty and properly checked the horse with reasonable care, it would be difficult to prove that they did not detected the disease.

Due to the nature of the contract and the representation not being made directly to her but through Bruce. Jodie can claim the negligent misstatement through privity of contract or third- party liability using s 1 (1) of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (C(RTP)A).which provides that a person who is not a party to a contract the ability to enforce a term of the contract within their own right if the test of enforceability is satisfied. Even if the third-party beneficiary is unaware of contract at the time it was formedChudley v Clydesdale Bank.To satisfy the test of enforceability Jodie may use s 1(1) b which requires that the "term purports to confer benefit". Which she satisfies as she was intended to benefit under the agreements of the contract of the Horse's good health. When awarding damages to the claimant for the losses they endured due to the defendants negligence misstatement, the court will only so long as the damages were reasonably foreseeable ( wagon mound (no.1) It is possible that Jodie could claim monetary provision from the Vet for the loss of income and personal injury she acquired.

of Hedley Byrne v Heller

damages for 20,000 breach of contractual term

and then negligent misstatement

Jodie v Horsie Co.

Breach of Contract

Jodie placed an order from Horsie & Co. for a saddle pad. She falls during the race and gets injured. After further inspection, it is discovered that the equipment had a manufacturing defect. First it must be established on which type of contract what type of contract was signed between Jodie and Horsie.

The reason for the contract was for Jodie's purchase of the saddle pad which she used for her training and races. Although Jodie is an individual, she is a professional horse back rider who makes an income from riding, therefore the contract was for business purposes. The applicable law here is section 1(1) the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which concerns contracts between consumers and traders for the supply of goods, digital content or services. Jodie and Horsie & Co. have a business-to-business contract and not a business-to-consumer (B2C) contract because under section 2(3)

of the CRA a consumer is defined as an individual "whose purposes are outside of that individuals trade, business, craft or profession". Horseback riding is Jodie's profession; therefore, this is a B2B agreement. This is. Breach of contract of sale of goodss.6(1)SGSA1982. Under s 9(2) of the SGSA it is a requirement that when a trader supplies goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied are within of satisfactory quality. Which in this case is a evidently a breach, as Jodie was unaware of the manufacturing defect in the saddle prior to signing the contract. Furthermore, this breach permits Jodie to be entitled to a refund of good and permits rise for the court to award her compensation for the damages and loss she acquired.

Unfair terms

Horsie & Co. have a disclaimer clause limiting its liability from injuries and financial loss caused by equipment defects over 500. This clause cannot stand as the injury was caused by fault on the part of the company. The disclaimer amounts to unfair terms. Had the injury been as a result of fault of Jodie then the surrounding circumstances would have exempted the company. Despite the exclusion clause Jodie may still bring a case against Horsie & Co. using the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) which structures restrictions on exclusion clauses dealing with Business-to Business contracts. Under section 2(1) an individual cannot exempt or limit their responsibility for death or personal injury resulting from negligence by reference to any contractual term or to a notice provided to persons in general or to specific persons. The only way businesses can exclude liability, is if the term fulfils the reasonableness test outlined in s 11(1) of the UCTA 1977. To satisfy the reasonable test the term must have been fair and reasonable one to be included in the contract at the time it was made. Moreover, using s 11(5), the burden of proof to prove that the term is reasonable falls upon Horsie and Co. and it is up to the courts to decide whether it was reasonable or notGeorge Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds 1983 2 AC 803.

Schedule 2 then requires the court to assess the respective bargaining positions of each party such as whether Jodie was conclusively aware of the term in the contract or if assurance was available.

Jodie could claim the 15,000 for injuries and some or all of the 50,000 for the loss of potential income. Despite part of the agreement stating that Horsie & Co. is not liable for damages above 500, s2(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms places restrictions on such exclusion clauses in Business to Business Contracts. Hence,there is possibility that the court may rule in favour of Jodie allow Jodie to negotiate for settlement.Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971]

Problem Question Jodie is a professional horse rider. She needs a new horse to compete in the upcoming horse riding race. She also needs to purchase new horse riding equipment. She phones Bruce, a horse seller, and asks if the horses he sells are free from hereditary diseases. Bruce replies that they are. Bruce adds that all of his horses are checked by a vet who issues a certificate confirming the good health of the horse. Reassured by Bruce, Jodie pays $20,000 for a horse. Bruce promises to deliver the horse in 5 days. In the meantime, Bruce asks the vet to inspect the horse. The vet issues a certificate confirming the horse is in good health and has no hereditary diseases. Bruce's van breaks down. As a result, he delivers the horse with the certificate to Jodie 3 days later than promised but still in time for Jodie to practice. Jodie contacts Horsie and Co, a company that sells horse equipment. She tells Horsie and Co that she is interested in purchasing a saddle pad. Horsie and Co sends her an electronic contract, which contains the following provisions: a. Horsie and Co will not be liable for any injuries caused as a result of using its equipment. b. Horsie and Co's liability for any financial loss caused by defects in its horse equipment will be limited to $500. After months of active training with the new horse purchased from Bruce, Jodie enters a horse riding race. 2 minutes into the race, Jodie realises her horse is unusually slow. 4 minutes later, her new saddle pad purchased from Horsie and Co falls off the horse, causing Jodie to fall onto the ground and suffer several bone fractures that require long-term medical treatment. Jodie fails to finish the race, losing $50,000 of potential income. She needs f15,000 to treat injuries caused by her fall from the horse. It later transpires the horse equipment had a manufacturing defect and that the horse had a hereditary disease which affected its speed. Advise Jodie