Brief Facts about Business Law Environment - Assignment Example

Brief Facts (Fisher v. Bell A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window a knife with a price ticket behind it. He was charged with offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s. 1 (1) * of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. The shopkeeper was prosecuted on receiving the information about the display of the knife by the Chief Inspector of the Police, who was also the appellant in this case. This case concerns and reviews the requirements of offer and acceptance in the formation and culmination of a contract. According to this case when a certain shopkeeper displays goods in the shop window, it doesn’t necessarily means that he is making an offer at large to the customers, instead it may be taken as just invitation to treat by the seller. The offer has to come from the buyers side and and after the seller accepts payment from the customer it results in acceptance and a valid contract. At the court of first instance prosecution argued that the display of knife in the shop window constituted an offer of sale sufficient to create a criminal liability under section 1(1) of the Act. While the defense took a stand that it doesn’t amount to an offer to sell. The court of first instance decided in favor of the defendant. Even the appellate court upheld the judgement of first instance. The judgment was delivered by Lord Parker C.J., with Ashworth and Elwes, JJ. Concurring Q1. Was this case civil or criminal and why ? Ans. This Case was criminal in nature when it was brought about as the prosecution pressed charges under the Restriction of offensive weapons act 1959 but later on the issues on which it was decided concerned the chief elements of Contract Law, namely the role of Offer, Acceptance in the formation of a Contract that gave it a certain amount of civil tinge to it. The Court ruled that the display of knife in the Shop window was merely an invitation to treat and nothing more may be read in to it. Q2. In which Court was this hearing held and why ? Ans. This hearing was held in the Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench. It was held here as the Court of first instance has decided in favour of the defendant and the prosecution has appealed in the appellate court against the judgment of the court of first instance. Q3. Who brought the case and at whose expense? Who would now bring such a case before a court? Ans. The case was brought at the instance of a Chief Inspector George Fisher of the Bristol constabulary of the English police force and it was brought at the expense of the state or the Town Clerk of Bristol. The Prosecution at the instance of appellants in this case can make a further appeal against the judgment of the incumbent court. Q4. What was the person bringing the case hoping to achieve by it ? Ans. The person who brought the case was hoping to get a conviction for the defendant that in turn meant the defendant shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction in the case of a first offence to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding [fifty pounds] [level 4 on the standard scale] or to both such imprisonment and fine. Q 5. Could the case have been settled without a court hearing ? Ans. Yes the Director of Public Prosecution u/s 37B under schedule 2 of the Criminal Justice Act could have decided that there is not sufficient evidence to charge the defendant and could have settled the case there it self. Q6. What was the major issue in dispute between the parties to the case and what was the court’s decision ? Ans. The major issue in dispute between the parties that the prosecution alleged that the defendant was offering for sale a flick knife, contrary to s. 1 (1) * of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959 and thus was liable for a conviction. Whereas, the defendant argued that he was not guilty under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959 and the mere displaying of a knife in the shop window does not amount to making a offer for its sale. Facts of the case : On 31st December 2001, on its company website, Kodak advertised a digital camera and certain accessories at a special offer price of 100 pounds. Many people saw the offer and clicked on the appropriate buttons and included their debit or credit card details intending to buy it. An automatic acknowledgement was sent in response to each person. Then Kodak realised that the price was wrong and declined to supply the camera at that price. The company stated that it was a mistake and the price should have been over 300 pounds. (a) Explain, with reference to decided cases, the status of Kodak’s advertisement on its website. Ans. As per the facts of the given case Kodak advertised a digital camera on its website with its price included that in fact can have two views first it was a general offer to public at large to fulfil the necessary conditions and accept the offer. Many prospective buyers in fact accepted the offer by fulfilling the conditions and giving their debit and credit card details and in turn they even received an acknowledgement from the company. According to the case ‘Carlill vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1893);Q.B.256 , in this case the manufacturer of smoke balls advertised in newspaper that whosoever contracts influenza even after taking their smoke ball will get certain amount as reward or damages in return from the company according to the instructions set in the advertisement. Plaintiff bought the smoke ball used it as per instructions given in the advertisement but nevertheless contracted influenza. He brought a action against the defendant company and was rewarded damages by the court. It was ruled by the court that people would be bound by promises made to the world and public at large to fulfill what they promise, so far as some element of "reliance" or "detriment" to the promisee, or "benefit" to the promisor can be identified. (b) Applying the rules of offer and acceptance, discuss whether or not a binding contract would have been formed between a customer and Kodak for the sale of a camera at 100 pounds in these circumstances. Ans. When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal when accepted becomes a promise, the person who makes the proposal is called the ‘promisor’ and the person accepting the proposal is called the ‘promisee’. When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called consideration for the promise; every promise and every set of promises, forming the consideration for each other, is an agreement; and afterwards it culminates in to contract. Consent should always be free consent without any fraud, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. These basic rules of offer, acceptance and invitation to treat etc are amply illustrated in the cases ‘Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Boots Cash Chemicals Ltd.(1952)2 Q.B.795’ and ‘Felthouse v. Bindley(1862)6L.T.157’ and also in ‘Fisher v. Bell (1961) 1Q.B. 394’ According the basic rules of offer and acceptance discussed above a binding contract will form between a customer and Kodak for the sale of a camera at 100 pounds in these circumstances. In this case there was a valid offer and valid and free acceptance of the offer by the customers by fulfilling the conditions. Kodak cannot revoke the offer after the communication of the acceptance has been completed against it and the customers. The defense taken by Kodak would also not hold any ground as according to the principles of contract law ‘A contract is not voidable because it was caused by one of the parties to it being under a mistake as to a matter of fact’. References Ewan Mckendrick. Contract Law (7th ed). Palgare Macmillan Law Masters. M.P. Furmston . Law of Contract (12th ed). ELBS with Butterworths. J.Beatson. Anson’s Law of Contract (28th ed.) Oxford University Press www.westlaw.co.uk . Read More