BE THE LAW
LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTER
NAME: SUNNA HILAL LUQMAN
Answer to the question;
BREIF FACTS:
Peter reads an advertisement in the new vision of a special x-mas discounted fare of shs 20000 only to Arua by the executive coach bus company but on reaching he was told that the offer was only for the first ten customers and he was not eligible which made him pay 40000 for a regular seat. His suitcase with clothes valued at 1000000shs was given to another passenger whose suitcase was given to peter since they were the same. He reports to the company but the company denies because the ticket had a clause that the company is not liable for to any loss of passengers laggage.
ISSUES:
1-Whether there was avalid contractual engagement between peter and the executive bus company?
2-Whether executive bus company can rely on exemption clause to escape liability?
3-Whether the executive bus company is vicariously liable?
4-Whether Peter has any remedies?
Law applicable:
1-The contracts act, 2010
2-Common law and doctrines of equity
3-case law
ISSUE 1;
According to the contracts act 2010 defines a contract as an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be legally bound. For a contract to be valid we have to consider the following;
An offer; according to the contracts act 2010 defines offer as the willingness to do or to abstain from doing any thing signified by a person to another, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other person to the act or abstinence. There fore a contract can be made to an individual or the whole world and this case the offer was there and was made to the whole world as in the case of carill vs carbolic smoke ball company where the defendants advertised an offer of 100 pounds to any user of their carbolic smoke ball who caught influenzer after using it, they also stated that they had deposited a sum of 100 pounds with the bank
NAME: SUNNA HILAL LUQMAN
Answer to the question;
BREIF FACTS:
Peter reads an advertisement in the new vision of a special x-mas discounted fare of shs 20000 only to Arua by the executive coach bus company but on reaching he was told that the offer was only for the first ten customers and he was not eligible which made him pay 40000 for a regular seat. His suitcase with clothes valued at 1000000shs was given to another passenger whose suitcase was given to peter since they were the same. He reports to the company but the company denies because the ticket had a clause that the company is not liable for to any loss of passengers laggage.
ISSUES:
1-Whether there was avalid contractual engagement between peter and the executive bus company?
2-Whether executive bus company can rely on exemption clause to escape liability?
3-Whether the executive bus company is vicariously liable?
4-Whether Peter has any remedies?
Law applicable:
1-The contracts act, 2010
2-Common law and doctrines of equity
3-case law
ISSUE 1;
According to the contracts act 2010 defines a contract as an agreement made with the free consent of parties with capacity to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, with the intention to be legally bound. For a contract to be valid we have to consider the following;
An offer; according to the contracts act 2010 defines offer as the willingness to do or to abstain from doing any thing signified by a person to another, with a view to obtaining the assent of that other person to the act or abstinence. There fore a contract can be made to an individual or the whole world and this case the offer was there and was made to the whole world as in the case of carill vs carbolic smoke ball company where the defendants advertised an offer of 100 pounds to any user of their carbolic smoke ball who caught influenzer after using it, they also stated that they had deposited a sum of 100 pounds with the bank