Case And Statute Law. Robert and the Wooly Traders - Essay Example

?CASE AND STATUTE LAW Discussion In the analysis of the three case scenarios presented, different factors are put into consideration. The cases represent a wide spectrum of legal possibilities, which arise within business environment and revolve around bleach of contracts, asymmetry of information as well as negligence, which require to be analyzed by the court proceedings. Courts intervene and exercise discretion in economic cases, which are influenced by sunken strategic decisions, which often generate time inconsistent, and biasness in decisions arrived at (Scott and Sturm, 2006, p. 565). This essay is intended to identify relevant case and statute law; state and apply relevant legal principles; identify questions of fact that need to be decided by a court, on which liability and damages may depend and identify legal remedies available, outlining the basis on which damages are awarded (Anon, nd, p. 1-6). In the case involving Robert and the Wooly Traders clothing wholesalers, this paper intends to analyze the position of Robert with regard to the contract for purchase of the coats. In the contract, Robert who is a clothing retailer places an order with WT, the clothing wholesaler to have fourteen superior all-weather coats supplied to his premises. The sheepskin coats order was placed in September which upon delivery, the whole bunch sold within a week. Nevertheless, the case states that a fortnight later after the entire sale, customers started returning the coats after a rain which made the coats to have a foul smell due to wetting. It was argued that the sheepskin used in the manufacture of the coats had not been well treated and that resulted to the fouls smell after the coats became wet. This made Robert to ask for a full refund over the business transaction with the Wooly Traders. However, clause 11 of the WT has a different opinion which is the stand of the wholesale traders. It states that unsatisfactory transaction with regard to unsatisfactory goods should be reported promptly within a limit of three days after the delivery, thus stating that the pass of three days without raising the complaint automatically stands as a binding proof of satisfaction. The company therefore refused to consent to the demand of Robert of full refund as a compensation for the faulty coats sold to him. Time inconsistency would be cited as the dominant feature within this case (Anderlini and Felli, 2008, p. 1-34). General reasoning compels Robert to demand for the refund because his merchandise was returned after the sale by the customers as a result of the defects seen. The returned coats would have implied that Robert assumed the responsibility to refund fully the customers over the returned coats. Therefore, Robert was equally entitled to full compensation by the wholesale traders. However, as a contract, the placed order between the WT traders and Robert had binding frameworks and clauses among which the clause 11 had a time structure in determining the quality of the sold goods. Three days are what the contract is based on and thus any complaint rose after the three days after delivery would not be binding from the side of the wholesaler. Robert stands to lose on the case if the court would rule based on the eleventh clause. This is because as a contract, the two parties involved are entitled to abide with the consented to rules and guidelines. Robert has no defense because it would be assumed that he read and understood to the later the provisions of the clauses binding the contract. The guiding questions of fact to be relied upon by the court would be: Had WT made the contract clauses available to Robert before the consented to the contract and place the order? Had Robert read and comprehended the clauses of the contract before placing the order? After how many days did the complainant report the complaints? What is the proof of the complaints that the ship-skin coats were stinky when wet? Under the consideration of these questions, the court would be in a position to determine the liability of the accused in selling the faulty products while at the same time establish the compliance of the compliance to the contract clauses as outlined. Based on the reason that Robert reported the un-satisfaction from the goods many days after the prescribed three-day period, remedies available to him from the court would be limited as the eleventh clause from the contract stands to rule in favor of the accused. Therefore, the court may fail to accord Robert compensation from the wholesaler depending in the facts gotten through the facts finding questions discussed. In the second case involving Robert and the Wooly Traders clothing wholesalers, this paper intends to analyze the position of Robert with regard to the contract for purchase of the hats. In the contract, Robert phoned WT with a second order for 2 dozen thermal hats on Monday 8 October. By the morning of Wednesday 10th, Robert had dealt with several complaints about the coats. He decided to cancel the hats order and he phoned WT and told them (among other things) that he was cancelling the hats order. However, WT told Robert that they had already posted their acknowledgement of his order, and that he was not entitled to withdraw from the deal. On Thursday 11th, Robert received WT’s acknowledgement, postmarked 6 p.m. Wednesday 10th. From the explanation given hereby, it is clear that the period span entailed was lower than the three days stipulated from the eleventh clause as stipulated. The facts finding questions that would guide the court in determining the position of Robert in this scenario would be: when did Robert decide of cancelling the order? Why did Robert decide to cancel the order? When did WT post the acknowledgement of the order to Robert? Why did the WT postmark the acknowledgement for 6 pm of the Wednesday 10th? The facts revealed by the questions would most likely find the accused liable to compensate the complainant because the complainant is portrayed to have complied with the binding clauses among which the eleventh clause was part. By establishing that WT tried to play foul against the contract clauses, the court would rule in favor of Robert and the WT would be responsible for compensating the complainant for altering the contract as stipulated (Anon, 2006, p. 1-3). In the third case where WT engages into a contract with snoDogs clothing for a purchase of ski suits, the buyer stated clearly on the email that their terms understood orders to constitute a legal offer to purchase at the prices stated by the buyer at the date of acceptance of the deal. With an written acceptance email, WT confirmed to the contract after which SnoDogs took the delivery of the goods. However, with the turn of events where WT have now invoiced SnoDogs with an overstatement of the price agreed, SnoDog has a legal ground to challenge WT based n the consented agreement as against any other clause that the accused would base his argument on. The court would establish facts of the case through such questions as: what basis did the contracting persons agree the price upon? Why did the accused decide on raising the agreed price? What were the other biding clauses to the order? On these grounds, the court would therefore decide whether to order the complainant to pay the quoted price as the invoice reads or otherwise stick to the previous contract agreement’s price. The likelihood for the court to rule in favor of the WT is minimal due to the reason that there was a clear consent through written e-mails between the two contracting persons and as such, for WT to quote otherwise would be erroneous. The buyer had clearly set out his binding clause, which would therefore form the basis of reasoning on which the two contracted. The court would be guided by the first clause from the WT which have it that the contracts assented to by the company would be binding on even the terms proposed by the buyer and as such, the written agreements settled at by the SnoDogs as well as WT should have been binding. On the other case where Grant complains of negligence by Robert to have sold him a sheepskin with a pin which he had carelessly left in the collar, Grant sues Robert for the pain suffered and the resultant medication as well as the losses suffered from the failure to work. The court would establish whether: How was Robert responsible for leaving the pin on the collar of the sheepskin coat? How was the pricking by the pin being responsible for the ailment of Grant? What provisions does the retailer have over the compensation necessary in such cases as these? Upon establishing the negligence of Robert in leaving the pin of the coat, the court would likely order the accused to compensate the claimant on the losses suffered through medication as well as the loss of not working. Moreover, the court would decide on future responsibility to be taken by the accused for such occurrences in the future. In conclusion, therefore, the above cases and statutes are seen to depend wholly on the facts established by subjecting the provided clauses to an analysis. While some of the legal clauses would fail to have authority in influencing the decision by the court, some universally accepted legal provisions would be applied by the court. Legal clauses are always binding to the terms of contracts assented to by the parties involved. Alterations on binding contracts would therefore be erroneous and the court is likely to rule in favor of the complainant. Bleach of a contract is interpreted as punishable by fines, imprisonment or other relevant corrective measures as prescribed by a court of law (Rutendo, nd, p. 1). Bibliography Anonymous. nd. Breach of Contract & Remedies. Available at: http://www.goldsmithibs.com/resources/free/Breach-of-Contract/notes/Breach-of-Contract-Remedies.pdf [Accessed on 24 July 2013]. Anonymous. 2006. Remedies in judicial review. Public Law Project Information leaflets 5. Available at: http://www.publiclawproject.org.uk/downloads/RemediesInJR.pdf [Accessed on 24 July 2013]. Anderlini L. and Felli L. Statute Law or Case Law? Available at: http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/la2/StatuteCase.pdf [Accessed on 23 July 2013]. Rutendo M. nd. Principles of law. [online] Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/rmakaha/law-of-contract-11345934 [Accessed on 24 July 2013]. Scott J. and Sturm S. 2006. Courts as catalysts: rethinking the judicial role in new governance. Columbia journal of European law, 13. Pp. 565-594 Read More