Analysis of Chad and Hamish vs Hot Surf - Case Study Example

Case I PAYMENT for the supply of the surfboards PARTIES Chad and Hamish vs Hot Surf. ISSUE As Chad gets admitted in the hospital, he gives the responsibility to Hamish to buy stock of surf boards as per the need arise, however he needs to check the budget up to $10 000 in total. In the mean time, the shop gets busier and to meet the demands, Hamish orders in 500 surf boards at a price of $250 each. Suddenly the weather changes and the surf carnival get cancelled. Hamish is left with 300 surf boards, not sold. As Chad discovers these 300 surf boards; he refuses to pay the supplier Hot Surf. LAW As per the legal proceedings the party’s duty under a contract is to discharge their obligations regarding the financial sector. Once they have done this, they are excused from further performance under that contract. Performance makes the decision stand in favour of the one that is with it. But total performance is not the only way in which a party, or even both parties, may be discharged from their obligations. LAW AND FACTS As per the rule though the 300 surf boards were not sold because of climatic conditions and the cancellation of the surf carnival, yet as they were bought the amount has to paid by Chad. Though there are various variations yet the results are in favour of the seller. One such case is SHIPTON, ANDERSON & CO. V. WEILL BROTHERS & CO. [1912] 1 KB 574; where the seller agreed to supply 4950 tons of wheat to the buyer. Upon delivery the buyer discovered that they had only received 4895 tons. As such the order gets cancelled and buyer refused to accept delivery. In this case the decision that came up was that the buyer could not reject delivery. The reason was that this because the shortfall was insignificant and as such could be met. The case of RE MOORE & CO. LTD AND LANDAUER & CO. [1921] 2 KB 519; where the buyer could reject all the goods if he so wished. In case of perishable food item, as this holds the method in which the fruit was packed was an essential part of the contract description. The decision allowed the buyer to reject the order and as such he received the right number of tins. As in this case the matter was all related to the storage factor the buyer was on the safe side. The cases were all having 24 could have taken the space for 30-tin cases and if the profit margin is small. As the extra storage space required could turn a profit into a loss, the buyer gets the favour of the judgement and the supplier needs to pay for it. There are many instances related to the buyer and the seller. As per the case of CUTTER V. POWELL (1795) 101 ER 573, Powell agreed to pay Cutter 30 guineas if he would sail as second mate in a vessel from Jamaica to Liverpool. Just like the bad weather in Chad’s vs Hot Surf case; Cutter died at sea before the completion of the voyage. To this Cutter’s widow demands for the recovery of proportion of the agreed sum of 30 guineas. However as it had been promised to serve as second mate for the whole of the voyage but had not done so the contract was not divided and as such the whole payment will come up at the completion of the voyage and as he could not perform his promise; there was no matter related to salary. To check the case of HOENIG V. ISAACS [1952] 2 ALL ER 176; where the plaintiff was employed to redecorate and furnish the defendant’s flat for £750. This is an amount that was supposed to be paid ‘as the work proceeds, and balance on completion’. Only £400 was paid, the work was found poorly done with a rectification was £60. Here the defendant refused to pay the balance. The decision was that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the contract amount, less the cost of rectification. This was done as the contract had been substantially performed and the defects were easily rectifiable. CONCLUSION All these cases shows that Chad must pay the whole bill to Hot Surf as his agent Hamish had bought the surf boats. The matter of climatic change is not a reason to stop paying the bill. As Hot Surf served his customer with all loyalty Chad has to pay the whole bill of 300 surf boats. As for Hamish, he did exactly that an intelligent agent would have done and thus he too is in the safe side. Case II REMEDIES and compensation regarding non-delivering of luggage PARTIES Qantas vs a Passenger ISSUE A passenger goes to the desk and checks in her bag and gets a seat number. She asks the check-in person what happens if her luggage gets lost and he tells her that if the luggage does not arrive in Singapore, Qantas will pay her compensation. When she gets to Singapore, her luggage is not there. She goes to the enquiry desk and she was told that her luggage is stuck in Sydney along with 15,000 other bags and Qantas has no idea when it will arrive She immediately demanded for compensation for the loss of her bag as she has to buy new clothes, a hair dryer and cosmetics which will cost over $2000. Qantas tells her that they are not responsible at all for her luggage and they will not pay her any compensation. They say they have no idea if her luggage will be found as so many bags have been ruined by the rain when they were left outside at the Sydney Terminal. They tell her to look at what is written on the back of her ticket. When she looks on the back of the ticket it says 'Qantas takes no responsibility whatsoever for the safe delivery of your luggage'. LAW – As per the rule the effect of the breach of goods o luggage will depend upon whether it is a breach of a condition, a breach of a warranty or a breach of an innominate term. In case of a breach of warranty they can only obtain damages. LAW AND FACTS A loss to the luggage of the passenger as in the aforesaid case needs to be paid by the Qantas, however as there is the disclaimer in the backside of the ticket the obligations gets created. The reasons related to the physical impossibility in the course of discourse that leads to destruction of the subject matter is always n the verge of making the party responsible who was in charge of the goods. However as per Taylor v. Caldwell [1863] where specific goods perish without the fault of either party or the non-existence of a particular thing the responsibility gets shared. As for the case of Pavey & Matthews Pty Ltd v. Paul [1987], it has been found that it would be unfair for the defendant to be allowed to retain money, or goods or services, without payment. Here there has to be the proof of the fact that the defendant has received a benefit and enrichment; and the benefit was at the plaintiff’s expense; and it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the benefit from his perusal. There has been a substantial performance in case of Hoenig v. Isaacs [1952]. The goods are under the responsibilities of the shipment under all ethical norms and as such the compensation has to be made. As for the loss or damages made under their custody; needs to be checked and the compensations have to be filed. As stated by Commonwealth of Australia v. Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) all sorts of damages are recoverable for expectation losses. These are the losses that are also added to the reliance losses anxiety, disappointment and distress as in case of Jarvis v. Swan Tours [1972]. This also holds the case of Baltic Shipping Co. Ltd v. Dillon [1993]. There is also the case which was in favour of the client who has gone through inconvenience, frustration, discomfort and mental distress. It is the case of Jackson v. Horizon Holidays [1975] and as such the mental and ethical points are more favoured is logically presented. As per the law all the damages are assessed on a once and for all basis at the date of breach, and as such the recovery is due to the client. It is the sheer responsibility of the shipment at least to place the goods properly as they are the important part of the whole transaction. It is therefore very important to lay emphasis on the means of handling these goods for the betterment of the company. The damages have to be paid and the losses are to be met, in fact to the owners of all those 15,000 other bags. CONCLUSION As per the above mentioned instances the decision regarding this particular case too should be in favour of the passenger and as such all the compensations has to be paid. Qantas cannot just make their irresponsibility to safeguard with the help of the note made behind the ticket. On ethical basis the case comes in favour of the passenger. References Business Law, 3/e - Australian Edition - Gibson & Fraser, Chapter 19: Rights of the parties and discharge,http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/altcc/student/ab2chapter.cfm?vbcid=10368 Business Law, 3/e - Australian Edition - Gibson & Fraser, Chapter 20: Remedies for breach of contract, http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/altcc/student/ab2chapter.cfm?vbcid=10369&vbookid=712 Business Law, 3/e - Australian Edition - Gibson & Fraser,Chapter 26: Agency http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/altcc/student/ab2chapter.cfm?vbcid=10375 Business Law, 3/e - Australian Edition - Gibson & Fraser, Chapter 28: Partnerships and joint ventures,http://myphlip.pearsoncmg.com/altcc/student/ab2chapter.cfm?vbcid=10377 Read More