Conduct procurements is the process of obtaining seller responses, selecting a seller, and awarding a contract. The key benefit of this process is that it provides alignment of internal and external stakeholder expectations through established agreements. Some inputs to the conduct procurement process include: who manages the bidder conferences; who sits on the selection committee; who negotiates with sellers; who has authority to sign contracts; Request for Quote (RFQ); Request for Information (RFI); and Request for Proposal (RFP). Tools and techniques of conduct procurement process include: analytical techniques; advertising; bidder conferences; independent estimates; and procurement negotiation.
The second stage of Caparo is established as proximity between Theresa and Wally exists. In Hedley Byrne v Heller , a duty of care arises where there is a “special relationship” between the two parties. In the case of Nettleship v Weston , the claimant was considered negligent as her own act resulted in damage. This relates to Wally as he could be held negligent due to acted below the expected expertise standard by setting Theresa’s arm incorrectly. Prior to the case of Caparo, in Anns v Merton, Lord Wilberforce developed the two-stage test that states “first one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity. Secondly, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.”
The third stage of the Caparo test involves establishing whether it would be fair, just and reasonable to claim that Wally owed a duty of care to the Theresa. The second element of the test was satisfied on these facts. However, it would be unfair, unjust, and unreasonable to place a claim against the hospital on the basis that duty of care can be established. Wally cannot be held liable as all doctors agree that trapped nerves are challenging to determine, it could not have been the outcome of the fall. therefore, it could be challenging for Theresa to prove her claim in negligence against Wally/ the hospital.
To conclude, in Mike’s case, his claim in negligence is likely to succeed in an action against the pub and the hospital. Mike has the possibility of suing the pub and getting a compensation for his injuries due to their negligence they failed to provide protection from accidents and a safe environment at their premises. As well as, he could claim against the hospital’s conduct, as they failed to have qualified doctors/ more than one doctor on duty. Moreover, his claim for compensation for his injuries as well as, medical care aid or any medical treatment for instance; liver transplant that he may need is also likely to succeed. Although, his damages could be reduced due to his contributory negligence, he is entitled to a compensation claim.
On the other hand, Theresa’s claim in negligence against the hospital is unlikely to succeed due to the reasons established. Thus, she could claim damages as there was a chance of her nerve being trapped regardless of her arm being set correctly. She could be entitled to claim up to 40% of compensation based on the lost chance.
