The purpose of this assignment is to learn how to apply particular aspects of commercial law to practical issues. Each community or group requires a set of rules among themselves to regulate the actions of members and balance the various interests of different members of the community. Both individuals and corporations are bound by the law of the country in which they reside. The law establishes rules for certain types of businesses and organizations and allows them to use them in personnel employment sectors. Business law is essential to understand to identify core business principles and helps identify when it is time to seek legal advice. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay A tort is a wrongful act (other than a breach of contract) that causes damage or injury to another party and results in civil liability. This law provides remedies against the invasion of various protected interests and of the claimants who have suffered harm. There are three main categories to identify whether the party is liable, they are identified as Intentional Wrongs, Unintentional Wrongs and Failure to Act in a Manner. The tort of negligence is a situation where people negligently cause harm to others, for the action to be successful three elements must be satisfied: the defendant owes a duty of care to the claimant, the defendant breached that duty of care and reasonably foreseeable harm has been caused. from breach of duty. This assignment is based on the case of Sanfa v. Maldivian. In this case, Sanfa was a lecturer at the National University of Maldives and it is part of his job to travel on weekends to Gdh. Travel tickets are taken a month in advance by MNU. And, on March 10, 2018, she went to Kaadedhoo airport for departure. His flight was at 3.30pm but upon arrival he learned that his flight had been changed to the morning one. They moved her flight to 6.30pm and when she complained she was taken to their lounge. His two sons who were in Male' also had fever. All these stressful situations caused his blood pressure to rise. He then consumed an iced coffee from the living room refrigerator and learned that in the coffee box were the remains of what appeared to be a decomposed snail. He claimed to have suffered shock and gastroenteritis from drinking iced coffee. Furthermore, since there was no sign to indicate that the floor was wet, she fell and her luggage was damaged. So, this case consists of problems that happened to Sanfa due to miscommunication and negligence on the part of the Maldivian. This assignment would, therefore, identify problems and discuss applications of the law and relevant authorities. Identifying ProblemsThere are various problems that occurred in this case Sanfa Verses Maldivian. • The first issue dates back to March 10, 2018, when he went to Kaadedhoo airport for departure. Her flight was actually at 3.30pm, and upon arriving at the Maldives check-in desk, she learned that her seat had been moved to the morning flight. The employee in charge forgot to inform Sanfa of the change. Maldives then changed her flight to travel on the 6.30pm flight and after complaining she was taken to their lounge. Due to this, his flight was delayed. Her two children who were in Male had a fever and all these stressful situations made her blood pressure rise. On this point, the "Maldivian" defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff could suffer from the flight delay, as well as notinform of the delay. Furthermore, the absence of physical injury is not a bar to claiming compensation for any recognized psychiatric illness, and is in principle compensable. McLoughlin V O'Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here. The second problem was that she consumed a cold coffee from the living room refrigerator and, due to the taste, poured the rest of it into a glass and her remains appeared to be a decomposed snail which caused her to go into shock and gastroenteritis. Even if there was no contract between the coffee producer and Sanfa, she can sue the producer for negligence. A similar case occurs in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The defendant could reasonably foresee that someone other than the purchaser would drink the coffee and therefore owed a duty of care to the end consumer. • The third problem was that, while returning from the departure lounge, she fell and her luggage was damaged. There was no sign to indicate that it was a wet floor. On this issue we know that the Maldives had a duty of care towards Sanfa. Maldives should have put up a sign indicating that the floor was wet. However, by not doing so it can be concluded that Maldives has breached the duty of care owed to Sanfa. To further analyze the situation, we need to know whether the damage or loss caused by the event was reasonably foreseeable. Lowery V Walker [1911] AC 10 is a similar case which we can use to identify. The first problem was that "Maldivian" did not inform about the flight change and moved her flight to travel on the 6.30pm flight and after complaining she was taken to their lounge. Due to this, his flight was delayed. Her two children who were in Male had a fever and all these stressful situations make her blood pressure rise. On this point, the “Maldivian” defendant should have reasonably foreseen that the plaintiff might suffer from the flight delay, as well as not informing him of the delay. Furthermore, the absence of physical injury is not a bar to claiming compensation for any recognized psychiatric illness, and is in principle compensable. McLoughlin V O'Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here. In the McLoughlin V O'Brien case [1982], Mrs McLoughlin's husband and three of her children were involved in a lorry accident which was O'Brien's fault. Mrs McLoughlin was at home at the time but was called to hospital. Upon arrival, she found one child dead, another seriously injured, and her husband and third child injured and in distress. As a result, he suffered from server depression and personality changes. The case was eventually heard by the House of Lords. And the Court of Appeal found that this was foreseeable. But they presented the so-called “lock-in” argument, meaning many similar claims could follow. There is also concern that some claims may be fraudulent as mental problems are much less obvious than physical ones. However, in the case of McLoughlin V O'Brien, the Court of Appeal held that a duty of care existed and that there were no political reasons to reject it. This does not mean that courts do not impose limits. The elements that will be taken into consideration are the proximity to the accident, the relationship with the injured person and the degree of severity of the accident. For this reason we know that Maldivian had a duty of care to Sanfa to inform of the flight delay and the flight changes made. And by not informing it can be concluded that the Maldives has breached its duty of care. It is also to be expected for the Maldives that a person may suffer fromstress by making changes and moving your flight without inquiring about it. So, since he suffered from stress and his blood pressure increased due to these facts, it can be concluded that he can claim his injury by providing the appropriate medical certificates and proving it in court. However, it can be argued that the Maldives does not need to check the medical condition of each passenger. Furthermore, it is common for passengers to experience delays at an airport, so it can be concluded that a minor stress could be possible that would not be the server causing other problems. Furthermore, if the Maldives were to give compensation to all passengers on the delayed flight, "lockouts" could occur which would lead to further problems. Furthermore, the delay was not the only reason why she suffered from stress. I suffered from stress worrying about her two sons who had a fever. Therefore, it is not foreseeable for the Maldives that Sanfa may experience flight delays and changes to his flight. So, Sanfa could win the court case by providing her with proper medical conditions and proving that she suffers from high blood pressure due to stressful situations. The court would then stop and decide whether the injury is medically recognized or not and check whether the three elements were met. The second issue was that she consumed an iced coffee from the refrigerator in the living room and, due to the taste, poured the rest into a glass and the remains appeared to be a decomposed snail which caused her to go into shock and gastroenteritis. Even if there was no contract between the coffee producer and Sanfa, she can sue the producer for negligence. A similar case occurs in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In the case of Donoghue V Stevenson (1932), the appellant, Mrs Donoghue, and her friend went to a bar where the friend bought the appellant an ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle and was opened at the table. The bar owner poured some of the ginger beer on the ice cream consumed by the appellant. The friend then poured the rest of the ginger beer into a glass and what was left was a decayed snail coming out of the bottle. Mrs Donoghue claimed she suffered shock and gastroenteritis following consuming ginger beer on ice cream and claimed £500 compensation from the defendant, Stevenson, who was the manufacturer of the beer. The plaintiff could not sue the defendant under contract law as no contract existed between them. However, due to negligence the manufacturer owed a duty of care to Sanfa. The defendant could reasonably foresee that someone other than the purchaser would drink the coffee and therefore owed a duty of care to the end consumer. In the case of Sanfa we therefore know that the producer of the cold coffee had a duty of care towards Sanfa. And the manufacturer of the iced coffee should reasonably foresee that someone other than the purchaser would drink the iced coffee and therefore owe a duty of care to Sanfa. The applicant Sanfa also claimed to have suffered shock and gastroenteritis following the consumption of the coffee. Therefore, Sanfa was harmed by consuming the product and can sue the iced coffee manufacturer for negligence, even if it does not have a contract with the manufacturer. Since Maldivian is only the supplier of cold brew coffee, it is unlikely that a supplier will check every product purchased to ensure there are no defects. Additionally, if the product is in a can and not a clear bottle, the supplier cannot see if there is anything inside that container. Therefore, the Maldives.