Rift Valley University

Burayu Campus

Names of Group Members

1. Ebise Gemechu
2.
3.
4.
5.
 1) Negligent Driver and Fetal Death:
In the case of the negligent driver and the pregnant woman, the analysis depends on
whether the accident directly caused the death of the fetus or if the mother's injuries
resulted in the fetal death. In Ethiopian law, causing the death of a human person
requires proof of intent or negligence resulting in death. In the given scenario, the
negligent driver caused the loss of the conceived child due to the accident. Under
Ethiopian law, the loss of a conceived child is not considered the death of a human
person. Therefore, the negligent driver would not be held liable for causing the death
of a human person. If the accident directly caused the fetus's death, such as through
placental abruption or other immediate injuries, the negligent driver could potentially
be held liable for involuntary homicide. The severity of the driver's negligence would
be a factor in determining the level of liability. However, if the fetus died as a result of
the mother's injuries rather than direct harm from the accident, the driver may be
held responsible for the injuries inflicted upon the mother but not for the death of the
fetus itself.
The same analysis applies regardless of the stage of pregnancy. Whether the
woman was two weeks or two months pregnant, the key question is whether the
accident directly caused the demise of the fetus. If the woman was only two months
pregnant, the legal perspective might differ. Ethiopian law does not explicitly address
the legal status of a fetus in cases of personal injury. However, it is possible that the
court could consider the loss of a two-month-old fetus as a personal injury to the
pregnant woman. In such a case, the negligent driver could be held liable for the
injury caused to the woman but not for causing the death of a human person.

2) Woizero Mulu's Inheritance and Child's Viability:

In Ethiopian law, viability is a significant factor in determining the legal status of a
child. Art 4. (1) A child shall be deemed to be viable where he lives for forty-
eight hours after his birth, notwithstanding any proof to the contrary. (2) A child
shall be deemed to be not viable where he dies less than forty-eight hours after his
birth. Regarding inheritance rights, if the child is not considered viable, Ato
Mekonnen would not automatically be recognized as the heir to Woizero Mulu's
properties and assets. Inheritance would likely follow Woizero Mulu's will, if one
exists, or be governed by established succession laws in Ethiopia. While the fact that
Ato Mekonnen and Woizero Mulu were living together and had plans to marry might
be taken into consideration, it would not automatically grant Ato Mekonnen
inheritance rights. Inheritance laws in Ethiopia typically require a legal relationship or
kinship for an individual to be entitled to inherit from the deceased.

3) Contract Acceptance:
According to the Ethiopian Civil Code (Article 162), an acceptance of an offer must
be unequivocal and correspond to the terms of the offer. Let's analyze the
responses:
 "Thank you, I am lucky to buy your car": This response can potentially be
interpreted as acceptance. It expresses gratitude and indicates a willingness
to purchase the car at the offered price.
 "Thank you for your concern, but I do not need any automobile now!": This
response clearly rejects the offer. It states that the recipient does not have a
current need for an automobile, indicating a lack of acceptance.
 "Thank you. I am very much happy to buy your car, but the delivery place
should be in Awassa": This response can be seen as a counteroffer. While it
expresses happiness and willingness to buy the car, it introduces a new term
regarding the delivery place. For this to be a valid acceptance, the seller must
agree to the change in terms.

In summary, the response "Thank you. I am very much happy to buy your car, but
the delivery place should be in Awassa" can be considered an acceptance. It shows
a positive response to the offer and expresses the willingness to buy the car, albeit
with a condition regarding the delivery place. This response indicates the intention to
enter into a contract with the seller. The other two responses do not clearly indicate
acceptance. The response "Thank you, I am lucky to buy your car" shows gratitude
but does not explicitly state acceptance or willingness to buy the car. The response
"Thank you for your concern, but I do not need any automobile now!" clearly states
the lack of interest in purchasing a car, which implies a rejection of the offer.

4) Regarding the defects that can invalidate the contracts:

4.1 The defect that can invalidate the contract is indeed the mutual mistake
regarding the nature of the contract. Alemu believed it to be an employment contract,
while Abebe intended it as an agency contract. Mutual mistake occurs when both
parties have a common misunderstanding about the fundamental terms of the
contract. In this case, the contract can be invalidated due to the lack of a meeting of
minds regarding the nature of the contract.

4.2 The defect that can invalidate the contract is misrepresentation. Abebe
repackaged the damaged T-shirt and sold it as if its original packaging was
untouched, which constitutes a misrepresentation. Misrepresentation occurs when
one party makes a false statement or conceals material facts with the intention to
deceive the other party. Ayele may have been led to believe that the T-shirt was in
its original undamaged condition, which could invalidate the contract.

4.3 The defect that can invalidate the contract is indeed fraudulent
misrepresentation. The car dealer knowingly painted the damaged part of the car to
make it indistinguishable from others. Abebe bought the car believing that the
painting was original, but later discovered the deception. Fraudulent
misrepresentation occurs when one party intentionally makes a false statement or
conceals material facts to deceive the other party. In this case, the contract can be
invalidated due to the fraudulent misrepresentation by the car dealer.