CAVENDISH UNIVERSITY – ZAMBIA

ASSIGNMENT BRIEF AND FEEDBACK FORM

Richard Mwango
STUDENT NAME

STUDENT NUMBER: 108-137

MODULE: COMMON LAW AND POLITICS

MODULE CODE: CUZL111

ASSIGNMENT NUMBER: 1

DATE HANDED OUT: 16th/08/2023

DATE DUE IN: 30/08/2023

ASSIGNMENT BRIEF

REFER TO THE QUESTION

0
STUDENT INSTRUCTIONS

1. This form must be attached to the front of your assignment.

2. The assignment must be handed in without fail by submission date (see assessment
schedule for your course)
3. Ensure that submission date is date stamped by the reception stuff when you hand it
in.
4. Late submission will not be entertained unless with prior agreement with the tutor
5. All assessable assignments must be word processed.
This assignment is intended to assess the student’s knowledge in all of the following areas.
However, greater emphasis should be given to those item marked with a

(Tutor: - please tick as applicable)

SL ASSESSMENT SKILLS Please Tick
No
1 Good and adequate interpretation of the question

2 Knowledge and application of the relevant theories

3 Use of relevant and practical examples to back up theories

4 Ability to transfer and relate subject topic to each other

5 Application and use of appropriate models

6 Evidence of library research

7 Knowledge of theories

8 Written business English communication skills

9 Use of visual (graphs) communication

10 Self-assessed ‘time management’

11 Evidence of field research

Tutor’s Marks contribution

(Administrative only)
LECTURER’S FEEDBACK
++
Table Of Contents

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….……3
CONSIDERATION PRINCIPLE…………………………………………...…….…………..3
DOES A CUZ STUDENT DESERVE COMPENSATION OR NOT………………………..4
CARILL VS CARBOLIC SMOKEBALL CO 1893………………………………………….4
THOMAS VS THOMAS 1842 ………………………….……………………………………4
THE REMOVAL OF A CUZ STUDENT FROM THE BUS….….…………….……………4
PRINCIPAL OF DUTY OF CARE…………………………….………………………….….5
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………….………………….6
REFERENCE…………………………………………...………………….……………….…7

2
INTRODUCTION
Contract law is the legal body that encompasses both the origination, enforcement and
ultimate enactment of all legal contracts or agreements. All those who engage in business
transactions, at some point or another, engage in contract law. Consideration of contract can
be described as the 'badge of enforceability' (Clarkson, 2015). The formation of a contract
depends on a meeting of the minds or consensus as to the terms of the proposed contract.
Both parties must have a clear understanding of their rights and duties in the transaction for
there to be consensus (Clarkson, 2015). In this topic, as a learned judge I will render a
reasonable judgment to a given case, critically applying the principles of consideration in
contract law and the principle of duty of care.
CONSIDERATION PRINCIPLES
Consideration must be given at the time of the agreement, but it does not include previous
acts. For example, in the case of Re McArdle (1951), previous work was not treated as
consideration for the contract for a future arrangement. However, if there is an agreement
between the parties that previous work is to be included, then that consideration may be valid
(Lampleigh v Braithwaite (1615) and Re Casey’s Patents (1892). According to (Bryan
Stevenson. 2015) stresses that, consideration is an exchange between the parties, which
results in a benefit to one party, and a detriment to the other (Bryan Stevenson 2015). A
consideration of value is required to make the contract legally binding and must be given by
the contractual party it cannot be given by a third party (Clarkson, 2015). A promise is only
legally binding if it is made in return for another promise or an act of something to be given
up (Bryan Stevenson. 2015). First and four most, English common law and customary law is
the judicial system that Zambia follows. Whatever is given up it should be something of
value or else a detriment. In the case of executory consideration, one party is bound by the
contract by promising to do something or not to do something.1 Sometimes, there is a dispute
as to whether or not a contract is legally binding because of an alleged lack of consideration.
In the case of a CUZ student and the public transport bus a promise was made and a receipt
was given that she pays k500 to reach Lusaka intercity. But the promise was broken by the
public transport bus by not receive the benefit of her consideration she made on her part as
the bus company had a duty of care to ensure she reached Lusaka intercity bus station (Bryan
Stevenson 2015).

1
Fairgrieve Duncan, (2015). Courts and Comparative Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3
DOES A CUZ STUDENT DESERVE COMPENSATION OR NOT
A CUZ student deserve to be compensated. The said student who is resident in Malawi was
scheduled to come for her residentials in Zambia for three days. The situation was that, upon
reaching Chongwe Zambia, the conductor removed her from the bus alleging that she did not
pay enough despite her having a receipt. A cuz student entered into a contract with this public
transport bus, this is as a result of the negotiations about paying a k500 and not the whole
amount. In this case a CUZ student was not at fault and she was supposed to be reached at
intercity bus station. Therefor a consideration was made. An offer may be made to a
particular person, a class of persons or even to the general public at large as the case was in
Carbolic smokeball co. 1893. In this case defendant company advertised its product Called
the smokeball and assured the respondents that anybody who sniffs the smokeball three times
daily for two weeks and contracted or suffered from flue would be paid one hundred pounds.
Carill vs Carbolic smokeball Co 1893.
Miss Carlill responded to advertisement took the smokeball and sniff it as per instruction yet
contracted a flue. Miss Carlill went to the company to correct her one hundred pounds but the
company refused to give her and refused that the company did not enter into an offer with the
company.2 The company argued that they have not entered into a contract with Miss Carlill
and further argued that there was an advertisement was to the general public not to an
individual. Stating further that there was no consideration from Miss Carlill. The court found
for Miss Carlill and agreed in favor of Miss Carlill and dismissed the argument from the
company. The court held that, the offer was made by the company clearly and specifically
and that the company went further to deposit one thousand pounds to the Aliance company in
regent store. The affected would still be paid from the one thousand pounds if claimed.
Therefore, concluded in this case that an offer can be made to an individual or to the general
public and still be valid. As for consideration the court held that miss Carlill followed the
instructions strictly as advertised. She sniffed 3 times daily in two weeks. According to the
court that was a consideration. In case CUZ student vs public transport bus it’s clear that a
contract was made and that both parties agreed to the offer and the acceptance.
THOMAS VS THOMAS 1842 (A DOMESTIC CASE)
A contract was made a in this case and it’s a clear situation to look at in a case of a CUZ
student. In this case the executor told Miss Thomas that if you look after the property or
house it will be given to her and further that all Miss Thomas had to do was to keep the house
in proper state and pay one pound per annum. Miss Thomas as in fact made the requirements
2
Little, Brown, Boston MA (1960). Karl Llewellyn, The Common Law Tradition: Deciding Appeals at 77–87,

4
as demanded by the executor because Miss Thomas fulfilled all conditions set up by the
executor by keeping the property in good state and paying one pound per annum. Suffered a
detriment and that was a condition. A condition can be monetary terms or in kind. A CUZ
student was offered a condition in kind and therefore a consideration was made. Promissory
estoppel is where someone is prevented from relying on certain facts or rights which are
different to earlier ones to the detriment of the claimant.
CASE OF LAMPLEIGH V BRAITHWAITE (1615)
Braithwaite in this case killed a man and asked plaintiff to obtain him a loyal pardon and
Plaintiff did so and then Braithwaite promised one hundred pounds but he never fulfilled his
promise and plaintiff said the defendant. Plaintiff succeeded in his actions because defendant
request was regarded as having promise to pay plaintiffs. I’m contrast with the case of CUZ
student vs Public transport bus, plaintiff negotiations for a receipt to reach Lusaka for a sum
of k500 is actually a consideration and the public transport bus accepted to reach her to inter
city Zambia was actually a promise. Therefore, A CUZ student claim for compensation is
justified.
PRINCIPAL OF DUTY OF CARE
The duty of care is a standard in the law of negligence. It is a duty owed to use reasonable
care; in other words, one must act as a reasonable person. It is a duty to act the way a
reasonable person should act in a given set of circumstances, and a deviation from this could
result in negligence Let’s look at the definition by Professor Winfield, he defined tort as a
breach of a duty, which duty is against a person and this duty is primarily fixed by law and
the breach of this duty is redressed by an action for unliquidated. In a case of CUZ student
and the public transport bus there was a breach of duty by the public transport bus driver and
conductor.
In contrast to the above case with Bradford corporation vs Pickles 1895. In this case the
Judge distinguished malice from tort. The facts where as follows: Pickles who is also a
defendant offered to sale a premise to Bradford corporation but Bradford corporation turned
down his offer. Following the decline of the offer, Pickles decided to dig a reservoir at his
farm and deviated the water from flowing to Bradford Premises. 3 Bradford corporation sued
Pickles and claimed Pickles was malicious in his action but the court said in this action
malice had nothing to do with this action and that Pickles did not act malicious when he

3
Siegel, S. A. (1981) ‘The Aristotelian basis of English law: 1450–1800’, New York University Law Review, vol. 56, no. 18,
pp. 18–59.

5
deviated the stream from flowing to Bradford corporation. Besides Pickles was free to do
whatever he wanted to do with the stream which went through his farm this case stopping the
water flowing to Bradford corporation. The case of CUZ student vs Public transport bus, the
public transport bus was to say not to accepting the Sum of K500 and there was nothing a
CUZ student from Malawi was going to do about it. But instead they entered into a contract
and them not abiding by it they breached the duty and it must be redressed by an action. An
example of duty of care that we can also look intoA landowner has a farm that he wants to
sell. He has the realtor come to the property to take a look. The realtor notices the land is in
great shape, safe, and clean. They were in the barn, and the landowner warned the realtor of
the doorway being slippery.
The landowner met his duty of care responsibility by keeping his property safe and warned of
the slippery doorway.
CONCLUTION
Judges provide instructions to juries prior to their deliberations and in the case of bench trials,
judges must decide the facts of the case and make a ruling. Looking at these cases a CUZ
student must be compensated back a K500 and other additional monies, for the damages
caused in line with what a privity contract says. The privity contract in Zambia says the
principle of privity of Contract provided that a Contract could not confer rights or impose
obligations arising therefrom on to other persons except the parties.... only parties to a
Contract can sue, enforce rights or claim damages in a contractual situation. justice system in
Zambia should make a concerted effort to guarantee the rights and liberties of citizens,
residents and visitors. This effort must include the whole legal profession: legal aid providers,
prosecutors and, perhaps most importantly, the judiciary. The judiciary should take a leading
role to promote access to justice and the rule of law.

6
REFERENCE
Clarkson (2015). Business Law: Text and Cases. Thirteenth edition. ISBN-13 978-1-285-
18524-8
Jack Beatson (2010). Ansons Law of Contract, Twenty-ninth edition. University of
Cambridge. ISBN-13: 978-0199282470, ISBN-10: 0199282471

Bryan Stevenson (2015). Just Mercy. New York City. ISBN 1925113574, 9781925113570
CASES
- In the court of appeal of zambia holden at lusaka (civil jurisdiction). appeal no.
21/2020
- Bradford corporation vs pickles 1895, and Carill vs carbolic smokeball co 1893
- In a case of thomas vs thomas 1842 (a domestic case)
ARTICLE
Fox, D. R. (1993) ‘The autonomy-community balance and the equity-law distinction:
anarchy’s task for psychological jurisprudence’, Behavioural Sciences and the Law, vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 97–109.