An application of the law on fraud and criminal damage to the scenario involving Floyd and George. You must include relevant precedents and statutes along with a reasoned conclusion:
Floyd engaged George to replace his TV roof aerial with a new digital aerial. He agreed a price of £400 for the work. However, he was determined not to pay the full £400, and he made some adjustments to his TV equipment so that he could claim that George had not done the job properly. He insisted on paying only £200, despite George’s protests. Whilst George was installing the aerial, he loosened a large chimney pot. However, he did not bother to do anything about it because of his dispute with Floyd. A few days later, the chimney pot fell from the roof, narrowly missing a passer-by.
Floyds intentions were not to pay the full £400 pounds even though it was agreed during the contract, which means he had the intention of not paying in full, this falls under the Mens Rea and actus reus of fraud that he had the intention to not pay in full. Similarly, Floyd had adjusted his TV so that he could blame George saying the job wasn’t done properly. George was negligent when he loosened the large chimney pot Floyd is responsible if the passerby sues him but he can recover whatever compensation he pays to the passerby by suing George.