Business Law: The Case of Luke Cool

Paper Summary:

This paper explains that the likelihood of Luke Cool's receiving damages in this case depends on whether the actions of Super Bikes and La Brute Manufacturing can be described as having been executed using "reasonable care". The author points out that Luke may be entitled to both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages from La Brute; however, Luke will likely only receive pecuniary damages in his suit against Super Bikes, as in contract law recovery of non-pecuniary damages is very rare. The paper concludes that, given that Luke was extraordinarily negligent in this case by not only continuing to ride the bike knowing it had a dangerous flaw, but also by riding on a difficult path and without a safety helmet, it is likely that his award in this case will be reduced significantly.

From the Paper:

"Luke would have no likelihood of successfully suing the employee of Super Bikes who sold him the bike, or the employee who told him to return another day as the part was not in stock, as the law generally distinguishes between those who have a contractual obligation to perform, and those who may due the actual work. While he may sue the employees on the basis of tort of negligence, this is unlikely to be successful due to negligence being defined in the law as failure to show "reasonable care"."

Sample of Sources Used:

• DuPlessis, Dorothy, Enman, Steven, O'Byrne, Shannon, and Gunz, Sally. Canadian Business and the Law. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2005.

More papers on Business Law: The Case of Luke Cool:

• Essay # 37197 : "A Sane Murderer: The Case of Luke Woodham"
• Case Study # 101305 : "Contract Law: The Case of Sally"
• Case Study # 131336 : "Family Law: The Case of Ben and Kate"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: