Law of Contract - Case Study Example

Law Wrapping of The Gift The case of Albert is governed under the sale of goods contract. The contract of sale of goods involves two parties where one party is the buyer and the other is the seller. Several terms and conditions are contained in the sale of goods contract and these are either implied or express. The sales contract in this case involves the buyer being Albert and the seller being Bobo shopping mall. The contract is created where Albert decides to buy the drier from Bobo and in this case, the two parties become bound by the contract. Both parties should ensure that they become aware of the terms governing the contract that they enter into. Albert therefore can only sue Bobo if only the contract contains terms relating to wrapping of goods. It the contract contained terms in relation to wrapping of the goods bought which are either implied or express, Albert will able to sue the seller concerning the inappropriate wrapping depending on what is stated in the contract in regard to wrapping. In this case, the seller of the gift who is Bobo will be under an obligation to pay damages to Albert who is the buyer bound under the contract. In absence of any terms and conditions governing wrapping of gift in the contract, Albert should not sue the seller since the seller will not be held liable for anything that is not contained in the contract. Albert should therefore establish whether the wrapping of goods is contained in the contract of sales prior to taking any legal action (Bose, 2010). Defectiveness of the drier The situation whereby Albert’s wife found the drier to be not working is covered under sale of goods ordinance cap 26 s (16). This provides for the extent of warranty that the seller can provide to the buyer in case where the goods are defective, as well as the conditions and terms that are provided in the contract relating to this. Albert in this case is expected to examine the drier prior to buying it to ensure that it is in good working condition. In this instance, Albert did not examine the drier to ensure that it was in good working condition at the time that he made the sale. Albert was however expected to review the sales contract that existed between him and Bobo at the time of making the contract to ensure that it allowed him to return the defective good. The seller on the other hand is under an obligation to sell goods that are in good working condition to the buyer and should provide room for return of goods that are not in their good working conditions. Albert in this case did not review the drier to ensure that it was working properly and therefore the seller cannot be held liable to pay damages to Albert since Albert did not discover the defectiveness of the drier during the time of buying. If he had reviewed the drier prior to making the sale, he would have discovered that it was not working and the seller would have been liable (Legislation.gov.uk, 2014). Clause at the back of the receipt The clause that was found at the back of the receipt indicating that the sold goods should not be returned is an exclusion clause limiting the seller’s liability under the sales contract. Exclusion clauses are usually expressly stated and should be clearly stated and unambiguous to ensure that they are effective. In the case of Albert therefore, the exclusion clause is found at the back of the receipt where the buyer could not see at the time of buying the hair drier. As ruled out in the case of Chapleton v Barry, the defendant could not rely on the clause since it was effective because it was written at the back of the receipt (Gabriel, 2008). The same ruling will be applied in the case of Albert and therefore the clause at the back of the receipt will not be applicable since being at the back of the receipt, it fails to be part of the contract. Albert can therefore sue the seller using this clause that was not clearly stated at the time of making the contract. The exclusion clause therefore will not be effective to be relied upon by the seller and therefore Albert will therefore have a right to of returning the drier irrespective of the clause at the back of the receipt. If the clause was clearly stated at a place where Albert could see when making the sale contract, Bobo would have relied on it to limit their liability. In this case, where it is in a place where the buyer cannot see, it will not be effective (Ferrari, 2011). Breach of rule under employment law Employment contracts and dismissal of employees are the major areas that are covered under the employment law. Adherence to employment law helps to ensure that the workers are kept happy in the performance of their duties and that they remain productive in undertaking their duties. It also results to cost saving since it ensures that the rate at which claims on tribunals concerning employment is minimal. Every employee in any organization is bound under a contract that governs their terms of employment and that binds both the employee and the employer. It consists of the rights of the employee in respect to the employment and the rules that the employee is expected to follow and observe in the course of their employment. Employees also under the employment law should be provided with written disciplinary procedures, which should be observed in a fair manner when dealing with disciplinary issues among the employees. Dismissal of an employee under the employment law is supposed to be undertaken by the employer, following the appropriate notice. However, in case where misconduct by employees occurs, the employee may be dismissed without notice. Misconduct arises out of an employee’s breach of duty as it is impliedly of expressly stated in their contracts employments. The cases where employees may be dismissed without notice include when an employee fails to go to work for two or more days without having an approval of the employer or in absence of a reasonable excuse or case. The second case is when the employee fails to go to work and does not inform or attempt to inform the employer about his reason for not going to work (Ministry of Manpower, 2015) In the case of Dobo and Edith, they are both under breach of employment contract, by breaking the rule stated in the company in regard to employees getting to work on time. However, the employment law requires that an enquiry the employer or the involved manager should conduct an enquiry in case of an employee’s misconduct in order to determine whether the employee is guilty of the misconduct under the given circumstance. The employee responsible should therefore be allowed to present their case when the enquiry is being conducted. The human resource manager in this case need to listen to the cases presented by Dobo and Edith and use these cases to determine whether the two are guilty or not. George the human resources manager should then use these cases to determine whether the two should be dismissed from their work. For Dobo it was the first time that she was late and this shows that it is not a tendency that he had of breaking this rule. Her reason for being late is also reasonable, being that she had taken her daughter to the hospital in emergency. If George the human resource manager was fair and reasonable enough, he could not have dismissed Dobo upon listening to her case. Dobo’s dismissal case therefore does no abide to the dismissal rules provided under the employment law. The fact that gave a reasonable excuse for her lateness guarantees her to stay employed. The case of Dobo relates to the ruling brought out in the case of Fijen v CSIR 1994, where the employee was not found guilty of breach as the conducted enquiry had indicated (Craasen & Erasmus, 2015). Edith’s case on the other hand is different considering she did not give a reasonable excuse as to why she had breached the rule of getting to work on time. Edith had also received four warning letters with regard to four other times that she had arrived late within the same month. Edith’s case is therefore different from that of Dobo and George the human resources manager ought to have applied different measures with regard to the two. Edith therefore ought to have been dismissed since she did not present any case to defend herself from being guilty. Dismissal of Edith therefore will not be regarded as unfairness and the only way that George the human resources manager could express lack of biasness is by dismissing her from her duties since she evidently breached the punctuality rule under the employment law. Dismissal of Edith by the human resources manager will be in consistence with what is provided in the law of employment (Law Donut, 2015) Reference list Craasen, A. & Erasmus N. (2015). Breach of employment contract. Retrieved from: http://www.labourguide.co.za/most-recent/1458-breach-of-the-employment-contract Ministry of Manpower. (2015). Contract of service and termination. Retrieved from: http://www.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/employment-rights-conditions/contract- of-service-termination/Pages/contracts-of-service-and-termination.aspx Law Donut. (2015). Employment law. Retrieved from: http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/law/employment-law Legislation.gov.uk. (2014). Sale of goods Act. Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54#top Ferrari, F. (2011). Contracts for the international sale of goods. New York: Brill Publishers. Bose, C. D. (2010). Business law. Oxford: Oxford university press. Gabriel, D. H. (2008). Contracts for sale of goods: A comparison of US and international law. Oxford: Oxford university press. Read More