The purpose of this work is to learn how to apply particular aspects of business law to practical matters. Each community or group needs a set of rules between them in order to regulate the actions of members and balance the various interests of different members of the community. Both the individual and businesses 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 apply it to areas of staff employment. 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 Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay Tort is a wrongful act (other than breach of contract) that results in harm or injury to another party and entails civil liability. This law provides remedies for invasion of various protected interests and for plaintiffs who have suffered harm. There are three main categories for determining whether the party is liable: they are identified under intentional torts, unintentional torts, and failure to act in some way. The tort of negligence is a situation in which people negligently cause harm to others. For the action to succeed, three elements must be met: the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty of care, and reasonably foreseeable damage was caused. by breach of an obligation. This mission is based on the Sanfa v Maldives case. In this case, Sanfa was a lecturer at Maldives National University and traveling on weekends to Gdh is part of her job. Transport tickets are taken one month in advance by MNU. And, on March 10, 2018, she went to Kaadedhoo Airport for departure. Her flight was at 3:30 p.m., but upon arrival, she learned that her flight had been moved to the morning flight. They moved her flight to 6:30 p.m. and when she complained, she was taken to their lounge. In addition, his two sons who were in Male had a fever. All these stressful situations made his blood pressure rise. She then consumed an iced coffee from the living room refrigerator and learned that there were remains of what appeared to be a decomposed snail in the coffee can. She claimed to have suffered shock and gastroenteritis following the consumption of the iced coffee. Additionally, as there were no signs that the ground was wet, she fell and her luggage bag was damaged. So, this case concerns problems that occurred in Sanfa due to miscommunication and negligence on the part of the Maldivians. This mission would therefore make it possible to identify problems and discuss the applications of the law and the judicial authorities. Identifying the Problems Various problems occurred in this Sanfa Verses Maldivian case. • The first problem dates back to March 10, 2018, when she went to Kaadedhoo Airport for her departure. Her flight was actually at 3:30 p.m., and upon arriving at the Maldives check-in counter, she learned that her seat had been moved on the morning flight. The employee who was in charge forgot to inform Sanfa of the change. Maldivian then moved her flight to travel on the 6:30 p.m. flight and after complaining, she was taken to their lounge. For this reason, his flight was delayed. Her two sons who were in Male had fevers and all these stressful situations made her blood pressure rise. On this issue, the “Maldivian” defendant should havereasonably foresee that the complainant might suffer from the flight delay and not inform him of the delay. Furthermore, the absence of bodily injury does not preclude a claim for any recognized psychiatric illness, and this is in principle recoverable. McLoughlin V O'Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here. The second problem was that she had consumed an iced coffee from the living room refrigerator and because of the taste she poured the rest of it into a glass.and the remains appeared to be a decomposed snail, which caused her shock and gastroenteritis. Even if there is no contract between the coffee manufacturer and Sanfa, it can sue the manufacturer for negligence. A similar case occurs in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). The defendant could reasonably have foreseen that someone, other than the purchaser, would drink the coffee and therefore owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. • The third problem was that while returning from the salon, she fell and her luggage bag was damaged. There were no signs indicating that it was wet ground. On this issue, we know that the Maldives owed a duty of care to Sanfa. The Maldivians should have put up a sign saying the ground was wet. However, if we have not done so, we can conclude that the Maldivians failed in their duty of care to Sanfa. To analyze the situation further, we need to know whether the harm or loss caused by the event was reasonably foreseeable. Lowery V Walker [1911] AC 10 is a similar case that we can use to identify this. The first problem was that “Maldivian” did not inform about the flight change and moved his flight to travel at 6:30 p.m. and after complaining. she was taken to their living room. For this reason, his flight was delayed. Her two sons who were in Male had a fever and all these stressful situations made her blood pressure rise. On this issue, the “Maldivian” defendant should have reasonably anticipated that the plaintiff might suffer from the flight delay and not informed him of the delay. Furthermore, the absence of bodily injury does not preclude a claim for any recognized psychiatric illness, and this is in principle recoverable. McLoughlin V O'Brien [1982] is a similar case which can be applied here. In the case of McLoughlin V O'Brien [1982], Mrs McLoughlin's husband and three of her children were involved in an accident with a truck which was the fault of O'Brien. At the time, Ms. McLoughlin was at home, but she was called to the hospital. When she arrived, she found one child dead, another seriously injured, as well as her husband and third child injured and in distress. As a result, she suffered server depression and personality changes. The case was eventually heard by the House of Lords. And the Court of Appeal ruled that it was foreseeable. But they presented the so-called “windows” argument, meaning that many similar claims could follow. There is also concern that some claims may be fraudulent, as mental problems are much less obvious than physical. However, in McLoughlin v O'Brien the Court of Appeal found that a duty of care existed and there was no policy reason to reject it. This is not to say that the courts do not impose limits. The types of questions that will be considered are proximity to the incident, relationship to the injured person, and the severity of the incident. For this reason, we know that Maldives owed a duty of care to Sanfa to inform of the flight delay and the flight changes that were made. And, by not informing, we can conclude that the Maldivians have failed in their duty todiligence due to them. Additionally, it is predictable for Maldivians that a person may suffer stress by making changes and moving their flight without informing. Therefore, since she suffered from stress and her blood pressure increased due to these facts, it can be concluded that she can claim for her injury by providing the appropriate medical certificates and proving it in court. However, it can be argued that Maldivian does not. does not necessarily have to check the health status of each passenger. Additionally, it is normal for passengers to be delayed at an airport. We can therefore conclude that minor stress could be possible, without the server causing other problems. Furthermore, if the Maldives were to compensate all passengers delayed by the flight, “floodgates” could ensue, leading to more problems. Furthermore, the delay was not the only reason she suffered from stress, she suffered from stress by worrying about the male's two sons who had fever. Thus, it is not foreseeable for Maldivian that Sanfa may suffer from the delay of its flight and the changes made to its flight. Therefore, Sanfa could win the case by providing her with the appropriate medical conditions and proving that she suffers from high blood pressure due to stressful situations. The court would then rule and decide whether or not the injury is medically recognized and ensure that all three elements are met. The second problem was that she had consumed an iced coffee from the living room refrigerator and because of the taste she poured it. the rest in a glass and the remains appeared to be a decomposed snail, which gave him shock and gastroenteritis. Even if there is no contract between the coffee manufacturer and Sanfa, it can sue the manufacturer for negligence. A similar case occurs in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932). In Donoghue V Stevenson (1932), the claimant, Mrs Donoghue, and her friend went to a cafe where the friend bought the claimant an ice cream and a bottle of ginger beer. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle and was opened at the table. The owner of the café poured some of the ginger beer on the ice cream which the claimant consumed. The friend then poured the rest of the ginger beer into a glass and the remains were a decomposed snail that came out of the bottle. Ms Donoghue claimed she suffered shock and gastroenteritis after drinking ginger beer on her ice cream and claimed £500 damages from the defendant, Stevenson, who was the manufacturer of the beer. The plaintiff could not sue the defendant under contract law since there was no contract between them. However, under the tort of negligence, the manufacturer owed a duty of care to Sanfa. The defendant could reasonably have foreseen that someone, other than the purchaser, would drink the coffee and therefore owed a duty of care to the ultimate consumer. So, in the case of Sanfa, we know that the manufacturer of the iced coffee owed a duty of care to Sanfa. And the manufacturer of the iced coffee must reasonably anticipate that someone other than the purchaser will drink the iced coffee and therefore owes a duty of care to Sanfa. Claimant Sanfa also claimed that she suffered shock and gastroenteritis as a result of drinking coffee. Therefore, Sanfa suffered harm by consuming the product and can therefore sue the manufacturer of the iced coffee under the tort of negligence, even though it does not have a contract with the manufacturer. Since Maldivian is only the supplier of iced coffee, it is unlikely that a supplier would check every product they purchase to ensure.