This 10 page paper considers a case supplied by the student. The case has a golf course that has been built too low, and suffers from flooding, the termination of a contract, the potential liability of a director, and the consideration of the implications of a new shareholder. The bibliography cites 8 sources.
Name of Research Paper File: TS14_TEcompcs.rtf
Buy This Research Paper »
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to enter into the contracts with the suppliers to undertake the required work. However, there appear to have been many problems. The golf course and the internal design. Firstly, we
will consider the Golf course. When we consider the golf course the contract we have is very short, it states "Whereby it is agreed that the contractor shall carry out
the necessary design and construction work for a nine hole golf course on the site marked on the attached plans". Here there is a contract where the suppliers has agreed
to undertake all work in designing and constructing the course. The course was completed and it would appear the contract was satisfactory competed. We may argue that the contractor cannot
be liable for the land flooding. However, as the company was also responsible for the design, then we may start to look at what preliminary work they undertook to
design this course, especially as we find out that the problem of flooding is likely to occur again due to the type of ground that the course has been built
on. Here we may look to cases to ascertain if we believe that the contractors building the golf course were negligent in not surveying the land first, and take any
necessary action. We may argue the reason behind the building of the course was known; to allow golf to be played, and as the land is unsuitable, this is not
practical, here we can look at the Jarvis v Swans Tours Ltd (1973) category of contract......."there was an express contractual obligation to achieve a result, not simply an obligation to
exercise reasonable care and skill in giving information or advice" (Valantine, 2000; 1719). In Hobbs v London and South Western Railway Co
Back to Research Paper Results