Business Law Case: False Advertising - Coursework Example

? Business Law Case Study Business Law Case Study Because advertising has the likelihood of persuading individuals into business transactions, which they can otherwise avoid, many regimes all across the world, use laws to manage false, misleading or deceptive advertising (Kidner, 2012). “Truth” is basically the concept used to argue that clients have the right to know what they are purchasing and that all vital information must be on the product’s label (Kidner, 2012). False advertising, in a majority of jurisdictions, is illegal. However, advertisers still uncover methods of deceiving their clients in ways, which are legal or technically unlawful, but unenforceable. The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) was passed on May, 2005, and had to be executed by member countries into national law by June 12, 2007 and it was applicable by December 12, 2007. Nevertheless, some member countries – for example, the UK, Spain and Germany – were late in adapting this law. It is said that there are various forms of misleading information about advertising on the internet, but the main form is still associated with misleading pricing information. Clients have complained that some of the prices that firms put on their websites are not the actual prices they pay when they buy the product. Such a case was witnessed in Hillingdon Electricals Ltd (HEL) when they stated on their website that the price of iPads and Tablets were ?29 and ?19, respectively while the actual prices were ?290 and ?190 respectively. This matter brought up a lot of controversy to the organisation, where they ended up stating that it was due to human error. Some clients how visited the store demanded to be sold the gadgets on the prices advertised while others, who had bought the gadgets online went to the store to demand for refunds. This paper will discuss these issues and advice specific clients who were caught in this tussle on their next move. Scenario A – Tony and Ursula Under the Sale of Goods Act of 1979, there are a harsh set of regulations, which sellers and retailers are expected to abide by (Wallington, 2010). When someone purchases a good, it signifies that they have entered into an agreement or contract with the vendor of the good. Under the Sale of Goods Act also, goods should be described, fit the purpose and of satisfactory quality. Fitting the purposes signifies both their day to day use, as well as also any particular purpose, which the buyer agreed with the vendor (Kidner, 2012). For instance, a buyer might specifically request for a printer, which would be compatible with his/her computer. Products sold are also expected to fit nay sample they were show in-store or any explanation in the brochure. Also, the issue of pricing comes into play because there are cases where a client can buy a product online thinking that they paid the price stated on the website and that is not true (McCarthy, 2010). If you wish to claim for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act, then you have a couple possible ways of settling your issue, relying on the situation and what you wish to be done. The claimant’s rights are against the vendor – the organisation, which sold them the product – not the producer, and so they should make any claim not towards the manufacture, but against the retailer. Nevertheless, this act does not apply to products that a client has bought on hire purchase (HP). If someone buys a product, which turns out to be flawed, then they can opt to reject it. This means they can return it and get a full refund of their money (Slocombe, 2012). The word flawed was explained at the beginning of this section, which also included pricing errors (Wallington, 2010). However, the law only grants you a logical period to do this – what is logical lays on the good and how clear the error is. But, even with complex items or considerable purchases, it is much safer to work with the basis that you normally have less than three to four weeks from the day you received the product to reject it (Kidner, 2012). Clients have the right to get flawed goods repaired or replaced if it is too late to decline them. Repair, in the sense of HEL enterprise, means fixing the price. Clients can request the vendor to carry out either, but they can usually opt to do whatever would be less expensive (Wallington, 2010). Under the case of HEL, it would be better to buy the goods with the stipulated price on their website. The Sale of Goods Act of 1979 dictates that a retailer must either replace or repair flawed goods in a rational period, but devoid of causing any significant issues (Wallington, 2010). If the seller does not do this, then the buyer is permitted to claim either a decrease of the purchase value, or a return of their money, less the amount for the usage they have had the product. This is referred to as called recision (McCarthy, 2010). If the seller declines to repair the product and they will not replace it either, then the buyer might have the right to plan for another party to fix their item, and then claim reimbursement from the seller for the expense of doing this (Kidner, 2012). However, in such a situation of HEL, the client cannot claim to be compensated by another business. However, they have up to six years to take their claim to court for flawed goods in England (Wallington, 2010). If someone’s claim under the Sale of Goods Act ends is taken to court, then they might have to demonstrate that the flaw was present when they purchased the product and not, for instance, something that was due to normal wear (Kidner, 2012). Therefore, Tony and Ursula have to show evidence that the price advertised by HEL was not the actual price that they were obliged to buy the product (Wallington, 2010). If someone’s claim is about a problem, which develops in six months of purchasing the product, then it is up to the seller to verify that the product was of reasonable quality, fit for function, or as explained before it was sold them. For example, the seller needs to show that the issue was caused by a peripheral factor such as human error or accidental damage (McCarthy, 2010). HEL fulfilled this by claiming that the price they had stated on their website, as well as the newspaper, was due to human error. If the consumer is knows of the error prior to placing an order, then there might be no contract between the consumer and the retailer (Wallington, 2010). For example, when Digilandmall.com incorrectly priced a copier at Singapore (SGD) $66 instead of around SGD $3854, six individuals placed a number of orders that were automatically processed by their system (Wallington, 2010). Afterwards, Digiland became aware of the fault and informed their clients that their orders would not be completed (Krings, 2009). The clients disputed this resolution in court, but they lost – the court settled that the clients had, in reality, known that there was a fault to the value of the copier before they bought them, and; therefore, there was no contract between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, Tony and Ursula, if the matter is taken to court, need to prove to the judge that they were not aware of any faults because it is practically unreasonable for any vendor to sell an iPad or Tablet at ?29 and ?19, respectively. Scenario B – Vondra and HEL When people are injured by an unsafe product, they can have a “Cause of Action” against the people who designed, produced, sold, or supplied that good. In the United Kingdom, a number of consumers have hailed the fast development of product liability laws as a useful tool for Consumer Protection (Kidner, 2012). The law has distorted from warning emptor ("let the consumer beware") to stringent liability for manufacturing flaws, which make a good unfairly dangerous (Wallington, 2010). Producers and others who supply and vend goods quarrel that product liability verdicts have improved plaintiffs' attorneys and added to the price of products sold. Firms have sought tort improvement from state legislatures and the parliament in anticipations of easing damage awards, which, at times, reach millions of pounds (McCarthy, 2010). In many jurisdictions, a complaint’s cause of action can be rooted in one or more of four diverse theories: breach of Warranty, negligence, strict tort liability and misrepresentation. Negligence is the lack of, or failure to practice, ordinary or appropriate care. It means that someone who had a legal duty either absent to do what they were supposed to do or did something, which was not supposed to be carried out (Krings, 2009). A producer might be held liable for negligence if absence of sensible care in the design, production, or assembly of the producer’s good led to harm (Wallington, 2010). For instance, a manufacturing firm can be found negligent if its workers did not carry out their duties properly or if administration endorsed inappropriate procedures, as well as an insecure good was made. Breach of warranty, on the other hand, is the failure of a vendor to accomplish the terms of a pledge, representation or claim made on the type or quality of the good. The law presumes that a vendor gives firm warranties about goods, which are vended and that they should stand behind these provisions (McCarthy, 2010). Misrepresentation in the sales promotion and advertising of a product is the process of providing consumers with phony security on the safety of a product, normally by ignoring the hazards and dangers of its use (Krings, 2009). Actions lie in the deliberate suppression of potential hazards or dangers or in neglectful misrepresentation (Wallington, 2010). The path to recovery, on grounds of misrepresentation, is the customer’s ability to show that they relied upon the demonstrations, which were made. Misrepresentation may be disputed under the concept of strict tort liability or breach of express warranty (McCarthy, 2010). Strict liability includes extending the liability of the dealer or producer to all persons who may be harmed by the product, even in the nonexistence of fault. Bystanders, injured guests or other individuals with no straightforward association with the product might sue for hurts caused by the good (Wallington, 2010). An injured person can show that the product was faulty, the fault proximately led to the injury, and the fault rendered the good unfairly dangerous. Therefore, Vondra has all the right to demonstrate to a court of law how HEL’s and Sumsum, Inc.’s goods hurt her and also all the external damages it caused to her (Krings, 2009). Under the breach of warranty rule, she has all the right to be compensated by the manufacturer and also the vendor because it her hurting was a breach of contract by the manufacturer that their goods are supposed to be safe. However, both the manufacturer (Sumsum) and HEL could be held liable since the responsibility of guarding against carelessness, as well as supply a safe product lies on every party in the chain of distribution, comprising of a manufacturer who inaccurately made a defective Tablet, the firm, which uses the good to assemble a product without determining a clear defect, and the HEL who should practice greater care in providing products for sale (McCarthy, 2010). In addition, the task of exercising care concerns all stages of getting a product to the users or consumers (Wallington, 2010). The product must be designed in such a manner, which it is not dangerous for its anticipated use. It should be tested and inspected at diverse stages, made from the suitable materials and assembled vigilantly. The product's casing or packaging should be sufficient. The producer must also provide sufficient warnings, as well as a user manual with the product (Krings, 2009). The vendor, however, is forbidden from misrepresenting the character or safety of the product and should reveal all defects. HEL failed to disclose these defects to other clients and yet they knew what had happened to Vondra, and; therefore, are liable to answer in front of a court of law. Vondra also has all the rights to file a complaint in court with regards to this. In addition, something instead of the product itself can make it to be defective (McCarthy, 2010). If might be that the Tablets were not properly programmed or its electrical system were also not well fixed, and that is why Vondra was shocked. Such responsibility is left for the manufacturer and the Vendor to verify before selling the product (Wallington, 2010). Otherwise, any defect or harm that the product causes, no matter the agreement between the vendor and the seller, they are liable. This also incorporates the Sales of Goods Act, which states that a product should meet its specifications or, if not, then the clients (Vondra, in this case) has a right to take the vendor to court for selling him/her a product that does not meet its specifications. It is totally the duty of the vendor and manufacturer to ensure that the goods they put into the market are safe for their consumers. Therefore, if this is not fulfilled, then a consumer can sue the two parties (McCarthy, 2010). Scenario C – Saeed and Wayne Immigrants or foreign workers are sheltered from employment inequity by laws imposed by the UK labour law (Lewis, 2009). The Equality and Human Rights Commission refers to a national law in charge for implementing laws that prohibit employment discrimination, as well as harassment due to color, race, sex, national origin, religion, age and mental or physical disability. Employers with over 15 employees, employment unions, agencies, employer-union apprentice programs, as well as state, federal and local agencies should comply with these laws. Saeed, therefore, should know that a number of employment practices like citizenship necessities, least height necessities, as well as policies against employing people with conviction and arrest records, might screen out individuals of a specific national origin. For instance, a minimum height obligation for someone jobs, such as firefighters or police officers might excessively leave out people of a number of national origins, such as Asians and Hispanics, and would be against the act unless the manager could confirm that it is linked to the work and required for the boss to operate carefully or proficiently (Lewis, 2009). Another policy, which might discriminate against particular national origin members would be a towering college diploma requirement, which might not be work related for a number of positions such as laborers (Cunningham, 2009). Ethnic slurs, as well as other physical or verbal conduct due to nationality, are unlawful if they are harsh or pervasive, which can create an hostile, intimidating or unpleasant working conditions, hamper with work performance, or harmfully influence job opportunities (Lewis, 2009). Cases of potentially illegal conduct include taunting, insults, or tribal epithets, likes joking about a person’s foreign accent or remarks like, “Return to wherever you came from, “ whether made by co-workers or by supervisors. In addition, Saeed should that he cannot be retaliated against for filing a charge, resisting employment discrimination or protesting, or taking part or serving as an eyewitness in a lawsuit or investigation. The Equality Act 2010 includes all factors of work such as hiring, recruitment, demotion, promotion, termination, compensation, layoff, work assignments, employee benefits, as well as all other regulations of employment (Lewis, 2009). With a number of laws and regulations on this matter, bringing a job discrimination claim can become very complex, particularly for people who are not represented by counsel. In many cases, the procedure is started by filing a complaint with the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). In reality, almost all claims should be passed to the EHRC, before the worker will be allowed to file a complaint. The EHRC requires complaints to be filed within six months or 180 days. If the incident took place in a region, which has passed laws managing the same issue, the Equality Act 2010 time limit is prolonged to 300 days. Either way, appropriateness and timeliness are important. Therefore, Saeed should consider filling his claim as early as possible (Lewis, 2009). The EHRC calculates filing deadlines rooted in the original date the worker was notified of the manager’s conduct. This can make a huge difference because an employer normally provides notice of termination or any other action months beforehand. Complaints can be filed with the EHRC by mail or in person (Cunningham, 2009). The organisation will need basic info to permit it to examine, like contact information for the employer and employee, as well as a description and the date of the confrontation (McMullen et al., 2004). As the inquiry continues, the EHRC may contact the parties for extra documents and information, or to plan an interview. It might also ask that the parties go to voluntary mediation to resolve the issue (McMullen et al., 2004). The Equality Act 2010 also protects against unfair treatment at work such as using verbal warning as a method of laying off workers (Lewis, 2009). The unjust dismissal regulation of the Equality Act 2010 is rooted in the idea of a ‘fair go all round’ and is meant to stop dismissal, which are ‘unjust, harsh or unreasonable’ and do not obey the Fair Dismissal Code (Lewis, 2009). Also, the act stops unnecessary dismissal of work with regards to cases that are not of genuine redundancy. In deciding whether a worker’s dismissal was unjust, harsh or unreasonable, the Equality Act 2010 grants the criteria, which the Equality and Human Rights Commission should take into account when deciding the harshness and other factors of the worker’s dismissal (Cunningham, 2009). They are, whether or not there was a legal reason for the dismissal associated with the worker’s conduct or capacity, which also includes its outcome on the safety and welfare of other workers (Lewis, 2009). Other basis include whether the worker was warned of that reason and whether or not the worker was granted a chance to respond to the reasons associated with the conduct or capacity of the person (McMullen et al., 2004). Wayne should be aware that a verbal warning concerns providing particular information of both the genuine absence in conduct or performance and the set of conduct or performance, which is needed (Lewis, 2009). Even though, the warning itself is oral, documentation by the employer who gives it is still needed and, preferably, the warning should be given in the company of witnesses. There should still be a record of the oral warning to confirm that it took place and the information of the warning, as well as the agreed outcomes. However, Wayne’s employee did not agree on the outcomes, there were also no witnesses and furthermore, the warning was not officially documented. Therefore, Wayne stands to win if the matter is taken to court. References Cunningham, N. (2009). Employment tribunal claims: Tactics and precedents. London: Legal Action Group. Kidner, R. (2012). Blackstone's statutes on Employment Law 2012-2013. New York: Oxford University Press. Krings, T. (2009). Being employed in the United Kingdom. United Kingdom Journal of Business Management, 34(4), 45-50. Lewis, T. (2009). Employment law: An adviser's handbook. London: Legal Action Group. McCarthy, H. (2010). The U.K. employment law. Oxford, Oxford University Press. McMullen, J. et al. (2004). Employment tribunal procedure: A user's guide to tribunals and appeals. London: Legal Action Group. Slocombe, M. (2012). Employment law guide. New York: Oxford University Press. Wallington, P. (2010). Butterworths employment law handbook. Butterworths: Butterworths Law. Read More