Breaches of Contracts by the High Street Phone Shop and Nokia Phone Company - Assignment Example

? Business law Introduction Business law is a the reviews the important principles of practicing legally accepted business Arnold-Baker (2008, p. 484). These include corporations, general partnerships, limited partnerships and sole proprietorships. Other topics include legal requirements, financial status, taxation and liabilities that relate to the principles. This paper incorporates these elements especially legal requirements and liabilities in answering and addressing the issues that arise between the two cases. The two cases include breaches of contracts by the High Street phone shop and Nokia Phone Company. In the hotel case, the rule of liability applies where a management distances itself from responsibilities. In the phone case, customers and the dealers breach the contract. The customers have made a deal with the company and it denies. This piece of work comprehensively discusses the two cases with reference to business law. Relevant issues For any case to be filed in a court there must be relevant issues. The issues form basis for the court proceedings. In this scenario, a customer of a hotel has filed a complaint for her stolen valuables. The court must use relevant laws that are applicable to business. The customer is right to claim her properties. Though the management put a notice distancing itself from any responsibilities, the court must reconsider this provision. The goods disappeared in the hotel premises and the customer has the right to claim them or file a suit against the hotel. Freda had an important issue to attend to that gullies hotel must consider. The rule of good ethics can apply in this situation because any organization must be responsible for whatever happens in its premise (Young 2009, p.1). For sure, the customer’ valuables may have fallen into the hands of room service. The hotel is therefore compelled to explain the behaviours of its staff and it makes them responsible for the customer’s loss. Rules of law applicable to the facts of the problem The rule of legal liability applies to this case. It is defined as “obligations under law arising from the civil actions (torts) or under contract” (Antoine 2008, p.440). The courts make decisions even if the parties have decided to settle the case out of the court trough mutual agreement. Liability insurance covers torts originated liabilities and not contractual obligations. The law of that applies in this case is “duty to guest” (Scwenzer, Hachem & Kee 2012, p.128). A common law binds innkeepers to bear responsibility if a guest looses a property while at the premise. The requirements are often contained in the innkeeper’s statute (Antoine 2008, p.510). This statute lies where the management and its staff can easily access it. It is a law that makes the hotel avoids paying liabilities to customers. However, the law can be reviewed when the court applies it to Freda’s case. For any lost property, there must be a claim. If the court decides against her, then it must also consider the future behaviour of the hotel. The management might make it a habit of not absconding responsibility to ethically wrong practices in its premise. The claimant is right to claim her belongings and the hotel must pay them. In summary, the law of guest property applies in the hotel industry but is subject to consideration if the situation implies that the management is irresponsible. The customer has suffered a loss in the hotel while attending to another important duty. In this case, a business meeting that needed her presence. May be in the process of attending the meeting, she forgot all her belonging or it would be improper to carry them to the place. The hotel is therefore responsible for the stolen property and must make payments. It is advisable for Freda to file the case in court. The hotel industry is same as hospitality industry. It should show some hospitality to customers. If Freda is does not receive compensation then it will bring a bad reputation to the whole industry. Customers closely watch any decision made by the court and it can have implication to the hotel business. Q2 Judicial precedence The background of judicial precedent is stare decisis (Duxbury 2008, p.58). This means that the court order standings are based on previous decisions. From the moment a certain portion of law has been used or decided in a certain case, it must apply in future cases that are having similar material facts. Generally, in the common law, the principle is that the court should decide on similar cases to give out predictable and similar outcomes. This goal is achieved by upholding precedent principle. A good example of such decisions is Balfour v Balfour [1918-19] CA (Martin 2005, p.90). The court found the manufacturer to owe duty of care to an ultimate product consumer. This court decision put a compelling precedent that was followed in. The other classical example cited in Duxbury (2008, p.59) case where the House of Lords found a conspiracy crime of corrupting public morals. The court followed the same ruling in the Knuller v DPP [1973] AC 435 case (Duxbury 2008, p.58) For this doctrine of precedent to apply, a person has to determine the simple basis of law. While delivering a judgment, a judge sets out all the reasons for reaching a certain decision. Reasons necessary for reaching certain decision brings about a terminology known as ratio decidendi of a case. It forms legal principle, binding precedent, which means the courts must follow it presiding over future cases. In certain situations, a persuasive precedent also exists. It consists of all judicial statements that do not bind but are considerable. These precedents apply if the case relates to the one in question (Kuhn 2011, p.215). Q3.  Relevant issues in the case Dealers in products have laws that govern their transactions. This works to protect both the customer and the manufacturers. Before selling a product, the parties must enter an agreement that satisfies both the parties. There exist elements that contractors must consider. An agreement is a major, which consists of an offer and acceptance (Scwenzer, Hachem & Kee 2012, p.128). In most cases, people confuse offers and invitation to treats. Invitation means attracting the attention of whoever will be willing to take part in buying the products. The advertisement that the phone company made on the newspaper is an invitation to treat and not an agreement. On the other hand, the parties must be willing to create legal relations. This means that the agreement must be legally binding which helps the court to consider the conditions under which the parties into the agreement. Thus in case of a dispute, the authorities can solve it easily. Other elements like consideration and legal capacity to contracts also apply to contracts. Consideration involves the court revisiting similar situations in the past on how the case was ruled. In this case, there are four clients involved in the sale of the phone. Andy called to inquire about the phone and concludes that he has a contract with the shopkeeper. In his statement, the phone vendor states the prices but does not give an acceptance. There is no agreement. He has only provided the information to the customer. This brings about the concept of acceptance. Both the offeror and the offeree must accept the agreement. If any issues arise, Andy should not claim to have a legally binding agreement with the phone company. In the first place, Brady learns about the iphone when he sees the advertisement on the shop. This is an invitation to treat. However, he asks about the price and the shopkeeper wants to offer it at three pounds. There exists an agreement between. It is a unilateral offer that involves the shopkeeper agreement to selling the phone and Brady willing to pay. The agreement is therefore valid. Carl may have made the agreement with the phone company before Brady came. The shopkeeper sales to him, which means they had an agreement before. Dana’s situation is a valid agreement. They accept the terms of the contracts and the phone company delivers it. By turning down the offer, the phone company can sue her for lost and money in terms of transport. The rules of law that apply to these scenarios There are several laws that apply to all the facts of these cases. The courts also have considerations of cases that it can use as references if any part files a suit. The shopkeeper tells Andy that their stock has lasted. If he files the case, he can use the rule of law to base his argument. However, the offerer terminates this offer orally through the phone. The vender has terminated through revocation. A good examples is cited the Byrne v Tien Hoven (1880) case (Jones 2011, p. 20). Brady’s scenario also requires the intervention of law. The shopkeeper changes phone price from 200 to 300. Difference on the price makes the whole process become a counter offer (MacIntyre 2011, p.40). Hyde v Wrench (1840) case, where claimant refused the offer since the later offer countered the original. Carl may not have a case put against him since he had the phone sold to him. Brady can only consider the manner in which the phone was to him after a negotiation. However, the phone company has the right to take Dana to court. All the rules of acceptance have been observed through communication. She accepts to pay for the phone but turns it down on delivery. The same rule of acceptance was observed in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) case (Jones 2011, p.20). The claimant proved that there was a valid acceptance. Q4. Consideration rules Although considerations should provide benefit to beneficiaries, they are not considered as great deals (Antoine 2008, p.440). A promise is made when a person provides something to the other party and the worth or the value of the promise is not considerable. Courts therefore do not inquire about the adequacy of these considerations as long as they exist. The sole reason of the rule is based on the principle of contract freedom. This golden idea requires that the court must allow parties to bargain themselves and ensure that the bargains suit them. However, the court should not interfere with the process. Considerations apply in the laws of contracts. The benefit of promises is known as consideration. Both the parties receive benefit as well as suffer a loss or detriment. Consideration must be valuable before the law. A good example is the Thomas v Thomas 1842) 2 QB 851 case (Martin 2005, p.25). This case shows what the courts considers as valuable and not supported by laws of consideration. For instance, the court does not consider a gift as a consideration.   The common law adheres to consideration requirements but it can also go an extra mile of   inventing the consideration. Arnold-Baker (2008, p.485) cites the examples of Ward v Byham [1956] 1 WLR 496, Williams v Roffey Bros [1990] 2 WLR 1153) cases where equity upheld promises that were never supported by the consideration law through the “doctrine of promissory estoppels” (Martin 2005, p.25). In these cases, the court considered elements that fall beyond consideration law. The court however, can dictate to the bargainers what will be considered or detrimental. It applies to situations where the bargaining parties fail to reach an agreement. This takes place in the court and the parties have no power to dictate what they win or lose in this win-lose scenario. The rules of consideration Primarily, the consideration must never be past. The parties giving out the considerations must make sure they give what is currently accepted. However, they may be valid if they are preceded by requests. Arnold-Baker (2008, p.485) gives example of Re McArdle (1951) Ch 669 case where the court had to compromise a past consideration. The other rule is that “consideration must not be sufficient but need not to be adequate” (Arnold-Baker 2008, p.485). The court does not require the parties to have a market value consideration. It is concerned whether the parties have a good or bad bargain. The third rule is “the consideration must move from the promise” (Kuhn 2011). If any other person provides a consideration and not the promise, the parties nullify their agreement. Martin (2005, p.25) cites the Tweddle v Atkinson [1861] EWHC QB J57 case where Twedlle rejected the agreement because a third party had been involved to provide consideration for the agreement. Alternatively, “an existing public duty will not amount to valid consideration” (Arnold-Baker 2008, p.485). Where a particular party has public duty, it cannot apply as a consideration for new promises. References Antoine R-M, B, 2008. Common wealth Caribbean law and legal systems. London: Routledge. Arnold-Baker, C, 2008. The Companion to British History, vs. "English Law”. London: Loncross Denholm Press. Duxbury, N, 2008. The Nature and Authority of Precedent. London: Cambridge University Press. Jones, L 2011, Introduction to Business Law. Oxford :Oxford University Press. Kuhn, Z, 2011. The Judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe: Mechanical Jurisprudence in Transformation? Boston: Martinus Publishers. MacIntyre, E 2011, Essentials of Business Law, 3rd edn. Essex: Pearson Education. Martin, J, 2005. The English Legal System, London: Hodder Arnold. Scwenzer, I., Hachem, P., Kee, C, 2012. Global Sales and Contract Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press Young, M, 2009. Understanding Contract Law. London: Routledge. Read More