In legal circles, a tort is a wrongful or unlawful act thus one can be prosecuted and jailed or fined for committing the offense. Therefore, tort law entails the law of doing wrong. In the case of Hassan and Fadel, the two folks committed a civil offense by both departing their companies. By leaving the International Bank of New York to search for career advancement, Hassan had contravened his legal duty at the bank. The same breach applies to Fared who left the Global Finance Company to migrate to Dubai to acquire quick riches and, personal career, development. In addition, by departing both their firms, Hassan and Fadel caused intentional injuries and a show of negligence towards their company. However, by setting up a phony casino online, a crime was perpetrated against society. In addition, it was criminal for Hassan and Fadel to entice members of the society so that they could con them.
In the above case, the plaintiffs are the International Bank of New York against Hassan, Global Finance Company against Fadel, and the public against both of them. Hassan and Fadel stand as a defendant before their employers for contravention of duty and contract that perhaps resulted in financial losses and injuries towards the banks’ clients. Furthermore, they caused a tort of negligence in departing their firms without considering the future losses of their employers. However, swindling the public monies through unlawful ways was criminal and it amounted to conspiracy and crime. This is to mean, both purposely came together and consented to con people through unlawful means. According to the law, by purposely coming together and both making decisions to defraud, they had committed a conspiracy. However, by conning the public, a crime of fraud was committed.
According to the law, a contract is an agreement written or spoken by two parties, for instance, in a business deal, and is enforceable by law. In the case of Tariq and Moza, it was not a valid contract, however, at the point of sending Moza the last mail, Tariq had shown enough interest in the house of Moza, and they agreed would be buying it as soon as he checked his finances. Therefore, due to the lack of written agreement as per valid contract law when purchasing real estate, this was a void contract. In addition, his contract missed the essential components of a valid contract whereby there was no writing done and; therefore, it qualifies to be a void contract. However, the case is not an avoidable contract because Moza did not refuse to sell the house. In a voidable contract, some agree to the terms and conditions of the contract while others do not. In such a case, it does not merit to be a valid contract as it lacks the consent of one of the parties.
However, if Tariq decides to sue for damages, he is bound to lose. This is due to several reasons; for instance, even though they had a spoken agreement for the sale of the estate, it would be hard to prove the agreement making it a void contract. Furthermore, according to the law, the case amounted to an unenforceable agreement because Moza died suddenly before they could enforce a contract concerning the sale of the estate. Therefore, in such circumstances, without the presentation of a written document stating there was a contract to be enforced, the complainant who is Tariq cannot win the case for damages. In addition, Tariq may argue that it was an executory agreement whereby Moza was only waiting for him to check his finances then he buys the estate. However, the lack of a written agreement makes the contract void because it was not enforced at any one time.
In case, there was writing done by Tariq and the court still does not sell him the house, he has a lawful right to move to a higher court for damages. For example, in the executory agreement, as per the case of Tariq and Moza, backed by a written agreement of a valid contract, the court must offer him remedies for damages incurred because of losing the house to someone else even with a legal agreement. In addition, Tariq has a right to seek damages because their contract with Moza was an unenforceable agreement, in which there was writing done, making it a valid contract. According to the law, the court is mandated to proffer certain remedies in cases such as that of Tariq to enable him to buy the estate at the agreed price. In addition, Tariq had a lawful right to sue the court for intentional damages of violating his right to own the estate even with a valid contract as evidence.
In the case, of Ahmed and the furniture store in Sharjah, it was right for the store to make attracting advertisements to woo customers. According to the law of attraction in business, conscious and unconscious thoughts guide the actuality of customers’ lives and behavior. Therefore, the store was taking advantage of the art of marketing that is supposed to manipulate the thoughts of loyal customers such as Ahmed so that he could buy other costly furniture in that store. However, it was wrong for the store to make such an attractive advertisement then fail to deliver to customers such as Ahmed. The store is guilty of deceiving Ahmed of the availability of the convertible sofa only to find it is not there. In addition, by attempting to generate interest in Ahmed to purchase other costly furniture, it was a breach of a seller-buyer contract.
In the Ahmed case, it is a bait and switch scheme as the sofa was advertised at a cheaper price to influence Ahmed to come and buy other costly furniture. The bait was the advertisement of the sofa cum sleeper while the switch was when the salesperson tried to generate interest in Ahmed to buy other pricey furniture. Ahmed can sue the store for conspiracy to swindle him because they had purposely advertised the product only to present him with a costly alternative. Product liability means manufacturers or suppliers are accountable for the injuries incurred by consumers because of the flaws of their products. For example, the injuries of Ahmed if he could have bought the narrower sofa instead of the full-length advertised by the store. However, strict liability is an unintentional injury caused by a product but a manufacturer is still held accountable. For example, if Ahmed had bought the full-length sofa but still suffered other injuries that the manufacturer did not anticipate.