Business Law for Managers

Contents

Page no.

Question 1 (Part A)
2
Question 1 (Part B)

Case Laws

Question 2

Question 3

12

Case Laws

19

References

Total Words: 6302

Total Words Excluding Quotations: 4339

22

Business Law for Managers

Question 1
Part A.
Negotiation is one of the most important skills in business; In fact
there is no other skill which will give better chance of optimising the
success and the organisations success, every time when negotiation
takes place there is always an expectation of an advantage (Gates,
2010). According to Fisher & Ury, 1992 Negotiation is a basic
means of getting what you want from others. It is back and forth
communication designed to reach an agreement when both the
parties shows interest that are shared and others that are opposed
According to Kennedy (1998) When two people meet to reconcile
their different solutions to the same problem, Interaction takes
place, their behaviour takes place also they attempt to change each
others perceptions using various forms of language and finally
settles down on a common solution, this is negotiation
From the definitions above it is quite clear that negotiation requires
compromise from both the parties, there is always something to
loose and something to gain in negotiation.
Negotiation is very important in business world; there is growing
interest in business negotiation which originates from minimum
three perspectives:
There are practitioners, who does negotiation and are also
interested in getting the feedback so that they can improve
their professional communication skills
There are beginners, who does not hold sufficient experience
with negotiations and they need help to become a successful
negotiator.

Business Law for Managers

There are also researchers in the field of discourse analysis;

they consider business negotiation an appealing example of
verbal interaction practical as well as from theoretical point of
view.
(Ehlich & Vagner, 1995)
VARIOUS APPROCHES OF NEGOTIATION
Old style confrontational approach
In confrontational approach, power structures are considered more
static. According to Lester and Kezar (2011) Confrontational
approach has never created any desired change.
Many people are uncomfortable when it comes to confrontation, it is
very rare to look forward to confrontation, and it may never make
someone

comfortable

with

or

even

skilled

in,

confrontation.

Confrontation simply means Negotiation, and is very important in

confrontational process that both the parties give their opinions.
Modern Collaborative approach
In Collaborative approach, each person respectfully and briefly
presents their understanding of the issue or the decision that needs
to be made, also the other people around are either listening,
reflecting or clarifying questions. There is no negotiation taking
place in Collaborative approach.
Mutual Win-Win approach
The best approach of negotiation is win-win approach which is
created by Ross Reck and his associates. The Win-Win approach
does not treat negotiation as a game in which there are winners and
losers, in spite of that it treats negotiation as an opportunity for both

Business Law for Managers

the parties to be winners and settles down by satisfying both the

parties (Moorhead and Griffin, 2012).
CONCLUSION
Negotiation is undoubtedly the oldest means of dispute settlement.
Not only the obvious rationale and the purposeful development of
negotiation strategies are important to successful negotiation
outcomes, there is a need of high level of relationship which builds
the trust between the negotiating sides. Negotiators have the power
to construct their identities in ways that improve their negotiation
process and outcomes. Negotiation does not involve the third party
intervention and it can relatively be informal.
Question 1
Part B.
According to Blum (2007, pp. 2-3) Contract may be defined as
exchange relationship created by oral or written agreement
between two or more persons, containing at least one promise, and
recognized in law as enforceable.
Also according to Ryan (2005, pp. 3-4), Contract is a legally binding
agreement made between two or more people who intend it to have
a legal effect for which the law will provide the remedy in the event
of breach. However in Ponape Construction v Pohnpei, the trial
court tries the restatement of contracts, which defines contract as
a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law
gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way
recognizes as a duty
In simple terms contract means a binding agreement between two
parties that the law will enforce.

Business Law for Managers

The basic step in determining the terms of the contract is to find out
what the parties said and wrote. The statements which are made
during the negotiations may be considered as representations or
terms and if someones is wrong, the plaintiffs remedy will rely on
how the statement is described.
A representation is a statement of fact which is made by one party
and that party offers contract to the opposite party. If the contract is
fake or incorrect the innocent party can sue for misrepresentation.
Breach of term of the contract entitles the injured party to claim for
the damages they have got and if he has been underprivileged
significantly to what he asked for then he can also reject the
contract.
If a statement is not a term of a principal contract, it is also possible
that it may be forced as a collateral contract (Law teacher, 2013)
Contract: Terms and Representation
Not everything that is said during the negotiations for a contract end
up being actual terms of the contract, some information only
amounts to a representation. A statement which is classed as a term
will become part of the binding contract, if the statement is not true
the innocent party can sue for damages. A representation however
does not become part of the contract, therefore if a representation
turns out untrue the innocent party has no legal remedy or they
cannot sue (Gillies, 2004. Pp. 66-67).
There are the four main factors which helps us in distinguishing
between terms and representations
Relative knowledge: Does one party have expert knowledge of
their subject? For example if a house dealer tells you something

Business Law for Managers

about the property, its more likely to be a term but if we tell the
dealer something that is a representation (Paliouras et. al. 2011, pp.
56-57)
Dick Bentley Productions V Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1WLR 623
Reliance: Is everything really reliable in the contract? If you
particularly wanted a car with leather seats, if you tell the dealer by
making clear that you are buying the car only because it has leather
seats, which is more likely to be a term of the contract (Wishart,
2012. pp. 19-20)
Bannerman V White ([1861] 10 CBNS 844
Strength of the statement: If the strength of the statement is
strong it is more likely to be a term, for example once a seller said
there is no need to inspect the car, i guarantee its a good car.
This statement seems quite strong and the court held it to be a term
of the contract (Riley, 2012).
Timing: Did the statement immediately proceed? If the seller said
this car has alloy wheels and you straight away say Ill buy it right
now, then the alloy wheels are more likely to be the term of the
contract (Riley, 2012). Therefore longer time is more likely to be a
representation. This standard can contain both an objective and
subjective interpretation depending on the nature of the contract.
Clarity of working is also relevant when distinguishing a term from a
representation. This is because clear and specific statements are
more likely to become terms of a contract where as vague
statements are more likely classed as mere representations.
Schawel V Reade [1913] 2 IR 81

Business Law for Managers

Case Laws
1. Dick Bentley Productions V Harold Smith Motors [1965] 1WLR
623
Held: The statement was a term, Mr Smith as a car dealer had
greater expertise and the claimant relied upon that expertise
(MacDonald & Koffman, 2010)
Individual Comment: Agreed with the judges comment, the car
dealer as being an expert breached the duty of care towards his
claimant.
2. Bannerman V White ([1861] 10 CBNS 844
Held: The statement that the hops had not been treated with
sulphur was a term of the contract rather than a representation as
the claimant had communicated the importance of the term and
relied on the statement, his action for breach of contract was
successful (Stone, 2011. pp. 181-182)
Individual Comment: As in this case the seller is successful in the
breach of contract, the claimant should raise as many legal defences
as possible including Affirmative defences. It is not enough to
simply let go the legal wrong doing and the claimant should respond
with every reasonable argument that justifies that the seller has
cheated.
3. Evans & Sons ltd V Andrea Merzario ltd
Held: It is common ground that the course of dealing was on the
standard conditions of the forwarding trade.........I would allow the
appeal (Rebeiro, 1996. pp. 14-15)

Business Law for Managers

Individual Comment: I would deal very shortly with the second

point with which Lord Denning has dealt already. It is being
recommended that even if these exemption clauses apply I would
surely ask counsel for the defendants, what the positions would
have been if when the defendants first quotation would had come
along there had been stamped on the face of the quotation No
containers should be shipped on deck and this containers would
have been shipped on deck. He courageously replied that the
exemption clauses would still have applied. According to me this is
quite impossible and no point to argue.
4. Schawel V Reade [1913] 2 IR 81
Held: The statement was a contractual term, the defendant had
assured him he could rely on his word and the claimant had
communicated the purpose for which the horse was to be used, the
defendant was thus in breach of contract (Monaghan & Monaghan,
2013)
Individual Comment: The plaintiff had no special knowledge about
horses and that is why he trusted the defendant as the defendant
had special knowledge. Definitely the defendant owes duty of care
to the plaintiff but he ignored everything.

Question 2
According to Murray (2013), Litigation is a process of taking case
through court. The litigation is most common in civil lawsuits. In
litigation there is plaintiff (one who brings the charge) and a
defendant (one against whom the charge is brought).

Business Law for Managers

In litigation, there are quite a few problems that occur and those are
time consumption, the process is considered to be lengthy,
uncertain outcome, high risk, and loss of privacy, personal life is
discussed in public.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
According to Browne et. al. (2013), ADR covers any option where
there is a dispute between two or more parties, that disputes relates
to civil legal rights and the dispute could potentially go to court for
resolution, the process may or may not involve the third party. The
parties to the dispute have a degree of control over the process and
decision taken through agreeing the form the process should take
and in some circumstances the final outcome
In simple terms ADR is a collection of processes which is used for the
purpose

of

resolving

conflict

or

disputes

informally

and

confidentially.
Mediation
According to Leibmann (2000), Mediation is a process by which an
impartial third party helps two (or more) disputants work out how to
resolve a conflict. The disputants, not the mediators, decide the
terms of any agreement reached. Mediation usually focuses on
future rather than past behaviour
The Mediation Process
Mediation process is designed to help mediators identify areas easily
where they need more research or preparation (Smock and Smith,
2008). In the mediation process the parties must enter into an
agreement to mediate and must sign the mediators conditions of
engagement.

10

Business Law for Managers

Mediation is an informal and flexible dispute resolution process. The

mediators role is to assist the parties toward their own resolution.
The mediator helps both the parties and defines their issues clearly,
understands each others position and moves closer to their
resolution. Most of the time the mediations start with a joint session
used to set the rules and agenda. The mediator will carry messages,
questions, demands, proposals etc between both the sides and will
help them to resolve their matter. The mediator has no authority to
decide the settlement or even compel the parties to settle.
Mediation is non-binding, until parties agree on a resolution.
Mediation is also called facilitated negotiation, this means the
parties should prepare for mediation in the same way they prepare
for negotiation (Torr, 2004).
Mediation remains an informal and confidential process; mediation is
highly cost effective in terms of immediate renewal of performance.
Mediation offers uniquely the most significant chance of multiple
win-win outcomes for all the participants as well as for their
businesses and organisations (Guyler and Doherty, 2008)
Characteristics of Mediators
Mareschal (2002) argues that, the acceptability, credibility and
perceived neutrality of the mediator are the basic building blocks of
mediator effectiveness. Credibility can help in building trust
between the participants (Mareschal, 2005), higher confidence and
encourage concessions (Silberman 1989). However, mediator insight
and credibility has been found to be important in influencing how
disputants view mediator recommendations and settlement rates
(Arnold and OConnor, 2006; Bowling and Hoffman, 2003; Kydd,
2003)

11

Business Law for Managers

The neutrality of a mediator is a key factor in building credibility. Yet

it is argued that a mediator is not authentically neutral but is
behaving neutral (Sherman, 2003). However McDermott et. al.
(2000) argues that a mediator is a paradox as a mediator is asked to
maintain an impartial relationship with both the parties.
Arbitration
According to Murray (2013), Arbitration is the process of bringing a
business dispute before a disinterested third party for resolution.
The third party, an arbitrator hears the evidence brought by both
the sides and makes a decision.
The Arbitration Process
Arbitration is a voluntary dispute resolution process where the party
will select a third party which is called the arbitrator and the
arbitrator will make decisions regarding their disputes. The arbitrator
characteristically hears evidence at a hearing conducted in an office
or other informal setting. The arbitration process is conducted in
accordance with any previous agreement of the parties. Unless the
parties have previously agreed otherwise the arbitrator has an
authority to decide the extent to which rules of evidence will apply.
Similar to mediation, arbitration is also a confidential process unless
it becomes necessary for the existing party to file the arbitration
award with an appropriate court to seek enforcement (Phillips,
2013).
In arbitration process both the parties will pay for arbitrators
services however the court system provides an adjudicator who
does not charge a fee. The fees for an arbitrator can be really high.
It is considered to be more expensive than Mediation.

12

Business Law for Managers

Characteristics of Arbitrator
As the arbitration process depends on an arbitrator he has to carry
himself in a satisfactory manner which gives the disputing parties
confidence in the integrity of the process (Kelly, 2013). A good
arbitrator is flexible and never burdens the parties with needless
formalities.
The effectiveness of Mediation and Arbitration in power
imbalance disputes
In certain employment disputes, such as those involving sexual
harassment claims, a perceived or real imbalance in the power
relationship between the parties may itself constitute an obstruction
to settlement. Mediation can be used effectively in combination with
other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedures, such as factfinding or facilitation to address specific needs in particular
employment disputes (Golann, 2009).
The initial expansion of individual employment rights came with the
enactment of title VII of the civil rights act of 1964, and that has
prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, colour, sex,
religion and national origin (Colvin and Pike, 2012).
Work place resolution has become a central focus in the UK for both
policy makers and employers in light of the increasing cost of
individual employment conflict most recently estimated at 410m
annually (Gibbons, 2007).
Conclusion
Arbitration is a confidential procedure and is considered to be
neutral, most importantly parties are able to select important
elements as the applicable law, language and venue of the

13

Business Law for Managers

arbitration. Mediation is played out with in organisations and is

certainly shaped by the power relationships between key factors
such as participants, managers, HR professionals and employee
representatives. Within the USA and New Zealand, the institutional
environment of dispute resolution provides strong incentives to use
mediation rather than risk costly litigation (Boulle, 1999 and Corby,
1999). In compare UK has adopted a volutaristic approach based on
organisations seeing the positive benefits of workplace mediation.

Question 3
LAW OF AGENCY
The law of agency is based on contractual principals. Agency is the
consensual relationship which arises when a person called the agent
acts on behalf of another called the principal whereby the latter
becomes answerable for the lawful acts of the former, carried out
within the scope of his authority, as to affect the legal relations
between the principal and the third party (Nwaka, 2013)
TYPES OF AGENCY POWERS
There are four main types of agency powers and they are:

Express Authority
Implied and Actual authority
Apparent or Usual authority
Ratification

Express Authority: According to Jentz & Miler (2010, pp. 453-454)

Express authority is authority declared in clear, direct and definite

14

Business Law for Managers

terms. Express authority can be given either in writing or orally.

Usually in express authority a principal expressly gives an authority
to an agent.
For example, Waitrose is the Principal, their employers are the
Agents and Customers are called the Third party.
Implied Authority: According to Schneeman (2012, pp. 12-13)
Implied authority simply means To act on behalf of a principal". In
simple terms implied authority is to act in the absence of a principal
or owner.
For example, if you go on a holiday and you ask your neighbour to
look after your house, if storm occurs and breaks your window glass
then a neighbour would apply the implied authority and repairs the
glass.
Apparent

Authority:

Apparent

authority

means

When

the

corporation indicates to a third person that the officer has authority

to act on its behalf and the third person believes in good faith that
such authority exists (Emanuel and Emanuel, ... pp. 80-81)
For example, a customer may believe that an employee who
presents a contract on a company stationary is authorised to sign
that contract on behalf of the company, though the employee does
not hold the authority to enter into such contracts the company will
be legally bound by the agreement being signed by the customer.
Ratification:
According to Miler (2013, pp. 419-420), Ratification means when
the principal affirms an agents unauthorised act. In simple words
Ratification means when agent exceeds his power but principal is
ready to accept.

15

Business Law for Managers

FIDUCIARY NATURE OF AGENT PRINCIPAL RELATIONSHIP

A fiduciary is defined as A person who holds a special relationship
of confidence and trust to a principal and owes to the principal a
duty to exercise all of the affairs of the principal in good faith and
with loyalty (Hinkel, 2012, pp. 91-92).
The agents authority is the agents power to act on behalf of the
principal. The authority of the agent is very personal to the principal
and agent relationship. It is said by Schneeman (2002, pp. 11-12)
that the source of agents authority is always the principal. The
agents authority includes all the powers of the principal.
As mentioned above, in the relationship between the agent and the
principal the four main types of authorities agents possess Actual
Authority, Express Authority and Implied Authority have and thus
principal owes Duty of Care to the agent. The principal has a duty to
use care to let the agent know if he could get in to any danger or
may suffer physical harm or risks to life etc. Similarly an agent owes
the principal several duties which include, Duty to perform, Duty to
act with reasonable care, Fiduciary duty, Duty to notify, Duty of
loyalty etc (Schneeman 2002, pp. 17-18).
LIABILITY IN AGENCY RELATIONSHIP
According to Larson (2003), an agent is a person who is authorised
by somebody to act on his behalf. The person who has given the
authority is the Principal. This is the form of Liability where one
person is legally responsible for the negligent acts of another.
According to Partnership Act (1890) every partner is considered to
be an agent of the firm and also to his other partners. All the
partners are responsible for any act which is carried out in the
normal course of business of the kind carried on by the firm unless

16

Business Law for Managers

the partner has no authority and the third party is aware about his
authority.
The link between unlimited liability and partnership is where a
partner acts as an agent for an unlimited partnership he acts both in
the name of the partnership as well as the other partners. Therefore
if a partner is negligent both the assets of the partnership as well as
the assets of the partners are at risk.
DUTIES OF AN AGENT
There are few major duties of an Agent to the principal under the
common law and they are:

To act in the best interests of the principal

No conflict of interest
No secret profit
Duty of confidentiality
Duty to use care and skill
Duty of obedience
To render accounts

To act in the best interest of the principal

When an agent is appointed to act on behalf of a principal, the agent
owes a duty to the principal to act in the principals best interest
within the authority of the agent.
No conflict of interest
This means that an agent should hold the interest and welfare of the
principal as superior to his own.
No secret profit
According to Walsh et. al. (2004, pp. 287-288), An agent who
makes profit or commission as a result of their position will breach

17

Business Law for Managers

their fiduciary duty to the client unless full disclosure is made. An

estate agent will be liable to account to the principal for any secret
profit or bribe received from another person.
This simply says that here an agent is representing the principal and
if the third party offers bribe to the agent he can no longer represent
the principal.
Duty to use care and skill
An agent owes the principal the duty of utmost care in carrying out
the agency, if the performance fails to meet the standard the agent
may be liable for any harm to the principal that results due to the
negligence (Dorsey and Haupt, 2005 pp. 4-5).
Duty of obedience
It is a duty of an agent to be obedient towards his principal.
Whatever he does that should be in accordance with the directions
of the principal and for the interests of the principal.
To render accounts
It comes under the duty of an agent to render the correct accounts
of all transactions to the principal from time to time.
PARTNERS AND COMPANY DIRECTORS IN BUSINESS WORLD
Partners acts as an agent for an unlimited partnership and he acts
both in the name of the partnership as well as the other partners,
therefore if a partner is negligent both the assets of the partnership
as well as the assets of the partners are at risk . A company director
is an agent of the company for which he acts. The duties of the
partners are very similar to the duties of an agent as they are
reflected in relation to partners under the partnership act 1890,

18

Business Law for Managers

furthermore the same duties are also reflected in relation to

company directors duties under the company act 2006.
A company is governed by the law of agency and is modified by the
Companies Act. A director of the company can act on behalf of the
company so as to create the legal relationship with the third parties.
In context of the company law, a company is the principal. In order
to establish a legal relationship with the principal, a third party will
need to set up the existence. The authority of agents may be
classified as actual authority, usual authority or unusual authority
(Schenone 2011, pp. 507-508).
A principal may be liable to a third person on account of a
transaction with an agent because of the principals of estoppels,
restitution or negotiability although they may not be subject to
liability based on principals of agency.
Duties and Liabilities of a Partner and a Director
The partnership deed contains the mutual rights, duties and
obligations of the partners; in certain cases the partnership act also
makes a compulsory provision as regards to the rights and
obligations of the partner.
Directors need to be aware that they are personally subject to
statutory duties in their capacity as directors of the company. The
companies act 2006 codified certain common law and duties of
directors. The act sets out sever general duties of a director and
they are:
To act within the powers in accordance with the companys
constitution

19

Business Law for Managers

To promote the success of the company for the benefit of its

members
To exercise independent judgement
To exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
To avoid conflict of interest
To avoid benefits from the third parties
To show an interest in a proposed transaction
(Wragge

&

co.

2013)
Directors may incur personal liability both civil and criminal for their
acts or omissions in directing the company (Institute of directors,
2010)
Under the Co.s act 2006 directors also have the following specific
powers:
Right to inspect company books: All the directors have the
right to inspect companys history, accounts and records
Power to make provision for employees: Under the section 247
CA 2006, directors have full power to make provision for the
better of the employees.
Power to call general meetings of the company: Under the
section 302 CA 2006, directors have full authority to call the
general meetings

(Davies,
2007)

Under the law until the enactment of the Companys Act 2006 the
duties which are obligatory on company director are:
Fiduciary Duty
The duty of skill and care
The statutory duties

20

Business Law for Managers

(Davies,
2007)

The duties and liabilities of partners are as under:

To carry on the business to the greatest common advantage

To be faithful with each and every one
To render true accounts
To provide accurate information and to work without

remuneration
To act within authority
Duty to assign interest
Every partner is liable for all the acts of the firm done while he is a
partner. Because of the liability, the creditor of the firm can sue all
the partners.
If there is any loss which is caused to the third party because of the
partner, the firm is also liable for the wrongful behaviour of the
partner. If there is an incoming partner, he is also liable for the debts
and acts of the firm from the date of his admission to the firm
(Kumar, 2012)
According to the partnership act 1890, every partner in the firm is
liable jointly with other partners. In Scotland many times for all
debts and obligations of the firm incurred while he is a partner and
after his death the estate is also liable in a due course of
administration for the debts and obligations (HM Revenue &
Customs, 2013)
Conclusion:
It is worthy to note that there is a fiduciary relationship between the
principal and the agent; this is because the principal has a trust on
agent and he lets him work on his behalf. The agents authority

21

Business Law for Managers

includes all the powers of the principal. We have also talked about
the duties of an agent to the principal, thus due to this relationship
principal owes high duty of care for his agents. The principals
power to furnish instructions to the agent is the fundamental
mechanism through which the principal exercises control over the
agent, a requisite for an agency relationship. The company director
also plays an important role as they initialise the legal relationship
with the third parties. However directors also have some responsible
duties and specific powers.
Case Laws
1. Beasley v Buckinghamshire CC [1997] QBD
Held: Cs complaint concerned not the policy decision whether to
use her services, but the practical manner in which the council had
acted, they had not supplied proper training and equipment
(Mandelstam, 1999 pp. 547-548)
Individual Comment: There is a tort of negligence as the council
owes a very high duty of care towards the foster parent. There is
also a damage which is caused to the foster parent and thus is a tort
of negligence.
2. Langley v Dray (1998) CA
Held: D owed a duty of care, he knew to have known that the
police were in pursuit and should not have gone fast on ice, and he
had a duty not to create such risk (Scribd, 2014)
Individual Comment: There is a tort of negligence, D was driving a
stolen car, and he being a road use owes a duty of care to other
road users as they may get harm due to his rough driving.

22

Business Law for Managers

Negligence is much wider than other types of torts. It protects

against three different types of harm:
Personal injury
Damage to property
Economic loss
3. Kent v Griffiths [2001] CA
Held: There were obvious similarities between the instant case
and the case involving the police or fire services, where it had been
held as a matter of public policy that there was no common law duty
to an individual member of the public, in this case the fact that
there was only one person who would foreseeable suffer further
injuries by a delay was important in establishing the necessary
proximity (Dam, 2013. pp. 251-252)
Individual Comment: It is very carelessness of London Ambulance
that they didnt arrive on time and due to them the patient suffered.
NHS owes duty of care to all the patients and their job is to save
individuals life but if they fail to show on time, it is genuinely their
carelessness.
4. Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Boots [1953]
1QB 401
Held: Goods on the shelf constitute an invitation to treat not an
offer, a customer takes the goods to the till an makes an offer to
purchase, the shop assistant then chooses whether to accept the
offer, the contract is therefore concluded at the till in the presence
of pharmacist (Stone, 2011. pp. 36-37)
Individual Comment: The normal view has been that customer
selected the item he wishes to purchase and then he took it to the

23

Business Law for Managers

assistant who accepted it and completes the contract. I personally

dont see anything different in this situation. The plaintiff contends
that the defendant has offered to sell the goods by displaying them
on the shelves, and that the plaintiff accepts the offer by taking
them from the shelf. If this is correct then the person who takes
something from the shelf cannot then replace the item if they see
something which they would prefer more. It is quite clear that the
sale takes place at the till under the supervision of the pharmacist,
in conformity with the act.
5. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 Court of
Appeal
Held: The machine itself constituted the offer, the acceptance was
by putting the money into the machine, the ticket was dispensed
after the acceptance took place and therefore the clause was not
incorporated into the contract (Contract law cases, 2010)
Individual Comment: In this case the offer was in the notice at the
entrance and was accepted when Thornton drove his car to the
entrance and by the movement of his car the light turned red to
green and the ticket was issued to him, the contract was then
concluded and it could be not altered by any words printed on the
ticket itself.

24

Business Law for Managers

References:
Abramson, H. I. Mediation Representation: Advocating in problem
solving process. Louiseville. The national institute for trial advocacy
Arnold J. and O'Connor K. (2006). How negotiator self-efficacy drives
decisions to pursue mediation, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
36:11, 2649-2669.
Blum, B. 2007. Contracts Examples and Explanations. 4 th Ed. New
York. Aspen publishers
Boulle L. (1999). Minding the Gaps Reflecting on the story of
Australian mediation, Bond Law Review, 11:2, 216.
Bowling D. and Hoffman D. (2003). Bringing Peace Into The Room:
The personal qualities of the mediator and their impact on the
mediation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

25

Business Law for Managers

Browne, J., Blake, S. And Sime, S. 2013. The Jackson ADR handbook.
Oxford. Oxford University Press
Colvin, A. And Pike, K. 2012. The impact of case and arbitrator
characteristics on employment arbitration outcomes. British journals
of industrial relations. 53(6). Pp. 1-36
Contract law cases. 2012. Contract law. [online]. Available at:
http://contractlawcases.blogspot.co.uk/2010/04/thornton-v-shoelane-parking-1971-2-wlr.html
(Accessed on 6th January
2014)
Corby, S. (1999). Resolving employment rights disputes through
mediation: the New Zealand experience, London: Institute of
Employment Rights.
Dam. C. V. 2013. European tort law. 2 nd ed. Oxford. Oxford university
press
Davies, J. 2007. A guide to directors responsibilities under the
Companies Act 2006. The Association of Chartered Certified
Accountants. 21(6). pp. 1-134
Dorsey, M. and Haupt, K. 2005. California real estate practice. 2 nd Ed.
Bellevue. Rockwell publishing ltd
Ehlich, K and Vagner, J. 1995. The Discourse of Business Negotiation.
Berlin. Walter De Gruyter & Co.
Fisher, R. And Ury, W. 1992. Getting to Yes: Negotiating an
agreement without giving in. 2nd Ed. Berkshire. Cox & Wyman ltd
Gates, S. 2010. The negotiation book: Your definitive guide to
successful negotiating. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons ltd

26

Business Law for Managers

Gibbons, M. (2007). A review of employment dispute resolution in

Great Britain, London: DTI
Gillies, P. 2004. Business Law. 12th Ed. Sydney. Ligare pvt. Ltd
Golann, D. Mediating legal disputes: Effective strategies for neutrals
and advocates. Chicago. American bar association
Guyler, M. and Doherty, N. 2008. The essential guide to work place
mediation and conflict resolution. London. Kogan page limited
Hinkel, D. 2012. Essentials of practical real estate law. 5 th Ed. New
York. Cengage Learning
HM Revenue & Customs. 2013. Nature of Partnership. Online.
Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/bimmanual/bim72505.htm
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)
Institute of directors, 2010. The duties, responsibilities and liabilities
of directors. Online. Available at:
http://www.iod.com/MainWebSite/Resources/Document/dutiesrespon
sibilities_1006.pdf
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)
Jentz, G. A. and Miler, L. R. 2010. Fundamental of business law. 8 th
Ed. Mason. Cengage learning
Kelly, B. 2013. Qualities of a good Arbitator. (Online). Available at:
http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/qualities-good-arbitrator13527.html

27

Business Law for Managers

(Accessed

20th

November

2013)
Kennedy, G. 1998. Kennedy on Negotiation. Hampshire. Gower
Publishing ltd
Kumar, C. 2012. What are the Rights, Duties and Liabilities of the
Partners? Online. Available at:
http://www.preservearticles.com/201101153418/rights-duties-andliabilities-of-partners.html
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)
Kydd, A. (2003). Which side are you on? Bias, credibility and
mediation, American Journal of Political Science, 47:4, 597-611.
Larson, A. 2003. Principals, Agents and Torts Liability. (online).
Available at:
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/agency.html
(Accessed on 27th November
2013)
Law teacher, the law of essay professionals. 2013. Terms of contract.
Online. Available at:
http://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/lecture-notes/terms-lecture1.php
(Accessed on 31st December
2013)
Leibmann, M. 2000. Mediation in context. London. Jessica Kingsley
publishers
Lester, J. And Kezar, A. 2011. Enhancing campus capacity for
leadership. Stanford. Stanford university press

28

Business Law for Managers

Macdonald, E. And Koffman, L. 2010. The law of contract. Oxford.

Oxford university press
Mandelstam, M. 1999. Community care practice and the law. 2 nd ed.
London. Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Mareschal,

P.

(2002b).

Resolving

conflict:

tactics

of

federal

mediators, Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, 11, 41-68.

Mareschal, P. (2005). Building a better future through mediation:
insights from a survey of FMCS mediators, Journal of Collective
Negotiations, 30:4, 307-323.
McDermott, P., Obar, R., Jose, A. and Bowers, M. (2000). An
evaluation of the equal employment opportunity commission
mediation program, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Available at:
http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/report/index.html
(Accessed

20th

November

2013)
Miler, L. R. 2013. Fundamentals of Business Law: Excerpted Cases.
3rd Ed. Mason. Cengage Learning
Monaghan, N. And Monaghan C. 2013. Beginning Contract law. New
York. Routledge
Moorhead, G. Griffin, R. 2012. Organisational behaviour. 10 th ed.
Mason. Nelson Education ltd
Murray, J. 2013. About.com. NewYork. (Online) Jean Murray. Available
at:
http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossaryl/g/litigation.htm
(Accessed

13th

November

2013)
Murray, J. 2013. About.com. NewYork. (online) Jean Murray. Available
at:

29

Business Law for Managers

http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossarya/g/arbitration.htm
(Accessed

20th

November

2013)
Nwaka, A. 2013. Law of an Agency: Scope of an Agents Authority.
Online. Available at:
http://thecorporateprof.com/law-of-agency-scope-of-an-agentsauthority/#
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)
Ottley, M. and Rush, J. 2006. Business Law. London. Thompson
Learning.
Paliouras, G., Spyropoulos, C. And Tsatsaronis, G. 2011. Knowledge
Driven Multimedia Information Extraction and Ontology Evolution.
Chennai. Scientific Publishing services
Phillips, J. 2013. The Mediation and Arbitration Process. (Online).
Available at:
http://www.fresnomediator.com/The_Process.html
(Accessed

20th

November

2013)
Rebeiro, R. 1996. Engineering Contracts. Oxford. Library of congress
cataloguing
Riley, J. 2012. Contract terms and representation. Online. Available
at:
http://www.tutor2u.net/law/notes/contract-representation-terms.html
(Accessed on 27th December
2013)
Ryan, D. 2005. Essential principals of contract and sales law in the
Northern Pacific. Lincoln. Universe press

30

Business Law for Managers

Schenone, S. 2011. Duties and Responsibilities of Director and

Company Secretaries in New Zealand. 4th Ed. New Zealand. CHH
New Zealand Ltd
Schenone, S. 2011. Duties and Responsibilities of Director and
Company Secretaries in New Zealand. 4th Ed. New Zealand. CHH
New Zealand Ltd
Scribd. 2014. Tort Law Negligence. [Online] Available at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34789711/Tort-Law-Negligence
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)
Sherman, M. (2003). Mediation, hype and hyperbole: How much
should we believe?, Dispute Resolution Journal, 58:3, 43-51.
Silberman, A. (1989). Breaking the mould of grievance resolution: a
pilot program in mediation Arbitration Journal, 44:4, 40-45.
Smock, D. R. And Smith, L. A. 2008. Managing a mediation process.
Washington. United States Institute of Peace
Stone, R. 2011. The modern law of contract. 9th ed. Oxon. Routledge
Torr, J. 2004. Improving Dispute Resolution. The mediation process.
(Online). Available at:
http://www.staffs.ac.uk/idr/mediationprocess.html
(Accessed

19th

November

2013)
Walsh, T. Duncan, W.D. and Christensen, S. 2004. Professional
Liability and Property Transactions. Sydney. The federation press
Wishart, C. M. 2012. Contract Law. 4 th Ed. Oxford. Oxford University
press

31

Business Law for Managers

Wragge & co. 2014. The companies Act 2006 and directors duties.
Online. Available at:
http://www.wragge.com/analysis_6110.asp
(Accessed on 1st January
2014)