What Is Dabir's Case Study

Business Law
1) Dabir’s Case
Dabir a lecturer at Uxbridge University lost his car to a thief who took it from the university car park. This has highly devastated him as he has to take public transport means to work, which is taking him about 6 hours to get to work. In this journey to and from work he has to use two buses and a train. This is definitely not something he likes, but as a result of the theft he is left with no option, but take such a long journey. The university has few spaces in its car park and as such there are regulations as to who qualifies for the car park space. It is also allotted ion a first come first serve basis. Apparently, he neither qualifies for the car park space according to the regulations nor was he supposed
This is not provided for in the stated rules a regulation as to who qualifies to park cars in the car park space. It is rather an implied contract that requires the employer to ensure the safety of the employee’s property. If one was to argue the case from such a stand point, then it is likely that the university needs to compensate Dabir for the loss. This would however, be on the basis of law of tor, under negligence. Dabir has suffered a loss or injury by losing his car to the thief who stole it from the car park. This is as a result of the negligence of the security at the car park. It the duty of these security personnel to ensure that the people driving cars from the car park are the rightful owners of the cars and should not at any times assume that the cars are being driven by their true owners. This is negligence as their work is to ensure the security of the cars at the car park irrespective of the warning given to the owners of the car. Unless the situation is not in their ability to handle and prevent they should be held liable for the loss of this car and should a remedy should be put in place to ensure that Dabir is compensated for his injury (Davies
To start with under the law of contract he purchased the book after enquiring about the latest edition. The attendant who sold her the book gave her false information and as such it can be assumed that when she got into the contract she had the wrong information. This implies that there was a breach of the contract. For a contract to occur it is necessary that the offer contains information that is accurate and up to date. Having information that is not accurate implies she got into the contract with information that does not pertain to the contract she was entering. As such there was misrepresentation of facts in the case, which makes it possible for her to demand a remedy for the misrepresentation of facts in her case (Lunney & Oliphant 2013). If she knew the true nature of the two books she would have purchased the James Roll book, but since she did not have the information that was correct she ended up purchasing the wrong book. This means the book attendant breached the contract by misrepresentation the true facts about the book. As such it is possible for her to sue the attendant and get a remedy for the misrepresentation. This is because she observed her side of the bargain in all ways possible and did not breach the contract as far as her side is concerned. Ion the other hand, the attendant gave her the wrong impression, which led to her purchasing the wrong book (Davies 2010). Had she been given the