Analysis of Business Law - Case Study Example

? Case study business law Part A Q1: Can Bob supermarket insist that Charles pays for the milk tins that he has damaged under the law of contracts? Discuss specifically issues related to the display of goods and capacity. Issues: Was there an adequate notification as regards the viewing of the items on display and the subsequent course of action in case damage was caused? Principles: A notice refers to a legal concept that is intended at making a part to be aware of the legal process that have effects on their rights, duties and obligations. Some are usually placed in public places whereby they are used to guide or warn the public about what they should or should not do. For an adequate notice, all that is important is reasonable steps be taken b the proferens in bringing the exemption clause’s contents and existence to the notice of the individual that the clause is to be used against before or even during the time that the contract is entered into. When we take a look at the Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson case, we find that it is without doubt that the requirement can be fulfilled by b the placement of the exemption’s terms on a notably displayed sign which would possible be seen by any normal or reasonable individual before or even during the time that they enter into the contract. A good case in instance is, Thomas v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd. Application: The board at the supermarket which had the readings ‘Nice to look at, Good to hold on, once broken considered sold,’ acts as a binding contract between Charles and the Bob Supermarket. It is clear that the supermarket met all the requirements to take care of its items and the clients as well. The clients or and any other person entering the supermarket is well made aware of the rules within the supermarket and any possible consequences once they are broken. Charles cannot claim to have not seen the notice as it is publicly displayed and should be seen by any reasonable individual. Conclusion: Therefore, the Bob Supermarket is right to ask Charles to pay for the broken tins of milk as there was sufficient notice to the clients as regards what is to be done within the supermarket or even how to interact with the items. Q2: Can Charles succeed in his claim against the Bob Supermarket for the poor quality of the phone and the poor photo taking quality? Discuss express and implied terms both under common law and the Sale of Goods Act 1986. Issues: Is the promise made by the Bob Supermarket to Charles bound by any law, or can it be considered legitimate? Principle: Past consideration cannot be considered to be a valid consideration (they are considered limited cases of exceptions where consequent promise would actually be binding). A good case in instance is Roscorla V Thomas. Consideration should be given to the actual promise that is given by the offerer. The consideration has to be simultaneous with the contract. Application: Exception usually come up where there will be a proper consideration if the offeree promises to make the payment and then consent to make a decision on the terms later; Servises that are offered at the request of the party making the promise, in conditions that come bring about an implication that a payment should be made for them; consequent promise might turn out to be binding in a contract of minors. Decision: There was no consideration since the contract had actually already been made before making the promise. This was therefore a past consideration. No breach of contract happened here as the promise made b the Bob Supermarket was not a compelling or valid consideration. Q3: Discuss whether the Bob Supermarket can use the exclusion terms effectively to protect themselves from Charles’ contract breach claims? Discuss using both common law principles and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Issue: The issue here is whether the warranty given was done before or during the time that the contract was entered or made by the parties. Judgment: The consumer protection constitutes organizations and laws that are designed for the purposes of making sure that the rights of consumers together with fair trade competition as well as the free flow of straight and candid information in within the marketplace. These regulations are designed for the prevention of businesses or transactions that involve deception or even particular practices that are unfair from gaining an edge over their competitors; in addition, they might also offer extra protection for the vulnerable and those that are not in a position of taking care of themselves (Heydon, 2009). The case here was the breaching of a contract as regards the suitability of the phone in making calls and taking photos. The first issue, on which the question comes us, stated that considering that the complainant, at the defendant’s request, had purchased the phone for about four hundred dollars, the defendant made a promise to the complainant that it was in a good condition and would serve him right, and was also free of vice. However, it was objected that in the arrest of the judgment, that the precedent had consideration, was not adequate to uphold the ensuing promise; and the objection has to prevail. In addition, it might be considered as a general principle, subject to the considerations that are not applicable to this instance that the promise has to be co-extensive with the exception (Seddon, 2009). In this instance, the only pledge or assurance that would that, as state, would come as a result, and co-extend with it, was delivering the phone on request. Even though at the request of the respondent, a precedent transaction devoid of a warranty does not impose any other duty or even obligation on the offerer. Therefore, it is apparent that the stipulated consideration would not bring up an implied pledge by the respondent that the phone was in good condition and free from vice; however, the promise in this instance should be taken to be express; and the issue is whether the fact will deserve or necessitate the promise’s extension beyond that, that would be implied by regulations, and also whether the exception, even though not adequate to bring up an implied pledge, would essentially uphold an express one; that actually will not. Therefore it is possible that the Bob Supermarket will be able to defend itself against the claims by Charles that a contract was breached. Q4: Can Charles succeed in his claim of negligence in Tort against Bob Supermarket? Discuss the elements of negligence and the defenses that the Bob Supermarket might have. Issue: Can a liability for negligence exclusively lie on the kind of accident that happened, without direct proof or evidence linking the defendant to negligence? Principles: A conjecture of negligence can came up or results from an accident. It is not a must that an individual presents direct proof of negligence when the sheer facts and manner in which the accident took place demonstrate that it could have occurred without negligence on the part of someone. A good case in instance is Byrne v Boadle. It cannot be considered to be an act of negligence if the defendant had not control over the occurrence of the accident. Application: It is the duty of the Bob Supermarket to ensure that every person that enters the supermarket is safe. However, this is only validated or considered so if the supermarket puts all the measures in place to ensure that everyone within the vicinity is safe. Like in this case, it was the duty of the supermarket to ensure that Charles was not injured by an object and it is true that they took all the measures to do so. It is apparent that Charles knocked the tins accidentally and he did not slide or even the tins did not fall on him. Charles cannot be in a position of proving that there was an act of negligence by the supermarket of its duties of ensuring that the tins could not be knocked by anybody. Ruling: The Bob Supermarket should not pay Charles for the injury incurred because it was accidental and there is no way the supermarket could have prevented it. It was the duty of Charles to ensure that he walked well within the supermarket and avoid hitting or knocking things as it was his own movement that caused the injury to himself. Part B In order for Charles to seek justice as regards the perceived or alleged crimes committed against him by the Bob Supermarket, which include claim for the breach of contract and the breach of duty of care under Tort, he will have to go to the Magistrates Court. This is because the Magistrates Court is the foremost or even the first level the systems of Queensland Court. Many criminal cases are initially given a hearing in this court in some form. It is also here that many civil cases are heard. An individual who is charged with a criminal offense, like in this case, the Bob Supermarket, should be taken before the Magistrates Court within the shortest time possible after the allaying of the charge. Then the magistrate presiding over the court will make a decision as to whether there is sufficient evidence for the individual to be tried and, if so, then which court should handle the case. The case might be committed to the Supreme Court or the District Court by the magistrate, depending on the offence’s gravity. If the court rules against Charles and he believes that justice is not well served, while he has sufficient evidence, he can go to the Court of Appeal to try if the decision by the Magistrates Court can be overturned. This is because the Court of Appeal is a branch of the Supreme Court and deals with the hearing of the cases from the Supreme Court and the Magistrates Court, together with many other tribunals. Nevertheless, this court does not handle entire cases or even have a jury; its main concern is dealing with the subject of appeal. It consists of three or five judges who take into consideration their grounds of the appeal and then make a ruling. Here, the judges will then hear to the presentations by the opposing groups or sides and then make a ruling or decision as to whether there was an error of law in the initial judgment by the Magistrates Court or even some critical fact was not taken into consideration in that particular original or initial hearing. The following are the jurisdictions within the Court of Appeal can act or even the things that it can do: Dismissal of the appeal, thus upholding the decision that was made by the Court of Magistrates. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the Magistrates Court’s decision and instead make a different ruling in its place. Nothing changes if there is dismissal of the appeal. However, if it is allowed, there will either be an order of a retrial or even making another different order in its place. Nevertheless, if the application made is for the purpose of appealing against a sentence, then the court can raise or reduce the sentence’s length. And if the court wants to increase the sentence that is appealed against, then the court will notify the applicant accordingly as regards their intention so that they can make a withdrawal of the application. If an appeal is made by the Attorney-General, then the sentence might be increased. References Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson (1906) 4 CLR 379. Byrne v Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299. Heydon, J D (2009). Trade Practices Law: restrictive trade practices, deceptive conduct and consumer protection, Sydney: Thomson LBC. Roscorla V Thomas, (1842) 3 QB 234. Seddon, N. (2009). Government Contracts: Federal, State and Local, Sydney: The Federation Press. Read More