|
|
NAME:
COURSE:
TUTOR:
UNIVERSITY:
QUESTION ONE
In this case, Jane and Eddie after graduating from university of Arcacia with a degree in business management, they started a gastro pub which they called Eagle where they offered a variety of food products such as vegetable, meat, bread, churney and wine among other food products. The Eagle pub has been performing well which have made it to be nominated for Michelin star award. However, the eagle is facing several legal issues in the process of its operation which need to be addressed. Jane and Eddie on behalf of their business enters into a contract with an organic farm company by the name Fresh food fast food ltd that sells a variety of farm products such as live animals. In this agreement Eddie calls Adele and requested her quote the price of delivering twelve wild boar piglets to their business. Adele informed Eddie that she had no response by then but she could call later and give her the details. Adele called later and gave Eddie the price of piglet which she accepted but insisted that the piglets must be delivered on Wednesday since there were some customers who were waiting for them. Adele promised to fax Eddie the following morning and confirm about their delivery on Wednesday which she did. However, Eddie was not in the office and therefore she never show the message. In the course of the day, Eddie met another pig trader (Peter) who offered to supply Eddie with the piglets at a lower price. Eddie later called Eddie and informed her, that they were no longer requiring their services. Adele was not happy with that since she had made all the necessary preparations including purchasing the piglet in order to supply the piglet to the eagle pub. To make matter worse the delivery driver had already left and was stopped on the way. In addition, Adele’s company would have delivered to another customer instead which made the company to lose £ 400.
This case involves contract law, where one of the parties (Eddie) breaches their contract with Adele about delivery of the products. The case involves an offer and acceptance of a contract where the two parties in a contract are not sure whether it is legally binding or not. According to the UK Contract Law, one party must make an offer and the other one must choose whether to accept the offer or not. As Gregory (2009, p.107) argues, acceptance of an offer is very important for it make the contract enforceable. For a contract to be legally binding, the offeree must accept the offer which has been given by the offerer. The acceptance of the offer shows the willingness of the offeree to contract with offerer. In this case Eddie request Adele to quote the price of the piglet which she did and Eddie accept the quoted price. That means that there was an offer and acceptance of that offer in that contract which is required to make the contract legally binding. According to the UK Law Contract, an offer and its acceptance can also be expressed in other ways and not necessarily in writing or orally. The contract may be offered and accepted through other ways like in the case of implied contract where the parties behave in a way that show they have entered into a contract even without expressing it in writing or orally. This are called quasi-contract and any party that breach the contract is liable for compensation in the court of law.
In this case, though Eddie and Adele never made their offer and acceptance in writing, there was an expression on the side of Eddie to accept the terms that were given by Adele. This was first made orally and then secondly expressed as an implication. This made the contract between the two parties to be legally binding. The eagle pub was supposed to perform their obligation in the contract as they had agreed in the oral contract. Eddie had expressed the Eagle’s willing to contract with the Adele’s company and the move to cancel the order by the eagle pub can be interpreted as the breach of the contract. According to the law of contract, Adele ought to be compensated by the eagle pub for breaching their contract. This case below can help to illustrate how offer and acceptance can be binding in the court of law.
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] EWCA Civ 1
In this case a company came up with a medicine for treating flu which was known as the carbolic smoke cell. In the advertisement the company claimed to give some money to any person who take the medicine and yet get infected with flu. Carlill bought the medicine believing that she could get well as it had been promised in the company’s advertisement. However after taking the carbolic smoke cell just as was directed by the physician, she become worse than before which made her to file a case against the company. In its ruling, the court found the promise that was made by the company in its advertisement to be legally binding and therefore required the company to pay carlill the damage for failing to get well after taking the drug as it was prescribed by the physician. This case was ruled using the UK Common Law of contract where offer and acceptance of a contract are clearly defined.
QUESTION TWO
After being frustrated by the action of Eddie, Adele suffered another loss when she was knocked down by fork lift when she had gone to purchase animal feed from Bambi stores. Adele was knocked down when she was busy explaining her frustration to another customer where a fork-lift truck that was passing knocked her down without a warning. In the process her leather handbag patek and Phillip watch were destroyed while at the same time acquiring a wrist and ankle fractures. Bambi stored ltd had a notice that stated that the company was not liable for any damage, loss or injury suffered by the company even if it is as result of the negligence of the employees or management of the company. This means that according to this signs, the company was not liable for the damage, loss and injury that Adele suffered.
In this case Adele suffers physically where he acquires wrist and ankle fractures and also suffers from the loss of her hand bag and wrist watch. Though, Adele was supposed to exercise reasonable care to prevent herself from such loss, much of the loss that she suffered can be attributed to the negligence of the fork-lift truck driver Mr. Reggie. According to the common law of negligence in the English Tort Law
, the management of the Bambi store ltd was supposed to take reasonable care of duty in order to protect their customers from any loss that may result from their operations. According to section2 (1) of the Unfair Contract Term of 1977, liability resulting from negligence that may lead to personal injury or death cannot be excluded. In this case Adele has suffered loss as a result of negligence which have resulted to personal injury and loss. This liability for negligence cannot be excluded as per this Act and therefore Bambi store ltd is supposed to take liability for the loss, damage and injury that Adele suffered in their store. The driver of the fork-lift tractor is also liable for the loss and injury suffered by Adele for failing to exercise reasonable care in the course of duty. Though Adele have been busy explaining her case to other customers, Reggie even never gave a warning to her which means that he never exercised a duty of care as it required by the law of negligence. According to the Unfair Contract Term of 1977, any case to be excluded from liability of negligence must satisfy the requirement of reasonableness where the party that caused the loss or damage must proof that it exercised some level of reasonableness in order to avoid such loss or damage. However the management and the driver of the store ltd must show that they exercised some reasonableness in order to prevent the loss or damage to the other party. This means that the Bambi store should be held responsible for the loss, damage and injury that Adele suffered. The fact that the store had put a sign notice does not exclude it from liability of the action.
Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd [1992]
In this case Horatio Myer & co ltd intended to buy a system for overhead conveyer from the plaintiff (Stewart Gill Ltd) which turned out to be defective. The defendant failed to pay and the plaintiff sued in the court of law. The defendant intended to set off this amount from other amount it was meant to pay later. Using the UCTA 1977, the court ruled that the decision was not reasonable and the defendant was required to pay the amount.
Thus even for the case above, Bambi store ltd has to prove in court that they have met the requirement of reasonableness for the management and the driver to be excluded from the liability of negligence. If that will not be possible then, the company will be forced to pay Adele for the loss.
QUESTION THREE
In this case, Samir who is a customer to the eagle shop, visit the shop with intention of buying some food for his champion petski. He finds Beryl who is a sale assistant in the shop and enquires about the suitable food for his petski. Beryl showed him an organic cut of meat which she was not sure whether it is good for dog though it was suitable for human being. Samir bought one kilogram of the meat and after feeding the petski with it in the evening, he was surprised to find it dead the following morning. After the test by the local veterinary, it was discovered that petski was killed by the meat which had some bacteria and unsafe to eat for petski. When approached Eddie and Jane argued that Beryl was not legally responsible for the incident and even as her employer they were not responsible at all for the incident.
The case also involves negligence where Beryl sells an organic cut of meat which she was not sure of its suitability and edibility. Beryl gives an advice which she was not sure which made Samir to buy organic cut of meat which killed his petski. Beryl was acting on behalf of the Eagle shop and therefore she may not be held accountable for the incidence but her employer can be held responsible for that. According Sales of Goods Act 1979 sec 1(14), the seller has an obligation of ensuring that the goods that are sold to the buyer are fit for their use. This means that the goods must meet all the description as required by the buyer in terms of quality, size, use, quantity or any other description that may be required by the buyer. In this case the organic cut of meat had not met all the requirements as the customer would like. The meat was not suitable for dog consumption as required by this clause. As Janet (2011, p.261) argues, Sale of Good Acts 1979 hold seller responsible for such acts against the buyer. This means that Eagle shop is responsible for the loss that Samir suffered. Berly may argue that she was not responsible for the act given that she was just an employee hired to sell what was provided by her employer.
REFERENCES
LEGAL JOURNALS
Gregory Klass. (2009). A conditional intent to perform. Legal Theory. Vol. 15, Iss. 2; pg. 107, 41 pgs.
Janet Ulph, (2011). Markets and Responsibilities: Forgeries and the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Journal of Business Law. Iss. 3; pg. 261.
LEGAL STATUES
English Common Law
English Tort Law
Sale of Goods Act 1979
UK Contract Law
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LEGAL JOURNALS
Gregory Klass. (2009). A conditional intent to perform. Legal Theory. Vol. 15, Iss. 2; pg. 107, 41 pgs
Janet Ulph, (2011). Markets and Responsibilities: Forgeries and the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The Journal of Business Law. Iss. 3; pg. 261
LEGAL STATUES
English Common Law
English Tort Law
Sale of Goods Act 1979
UK Contract Law
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
CASE LAW
Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] EWCA Civ 1
Stewart Gill Ltd v Horatio Myer & Co Ltd [1992]
