The Case between Mr Steve and Bea - Assignment Example

Business Law Student’s Name Institution Affiliated The Issue The issue at hand is a legal offence that was committed by Mr. Steven as per the claims of Bea. Mr. Steven has a store of artefacts that are normally displaced for any potential buyer to purchase. Bea, a female customer, approached Mr. Steven with an aim of buying an artefact that she was so much interested in. Bea was interested in the large painting due to the fact that the painting was labelled “Master.” Upon being asked whether this artefact was original, Mr. Steven replied that it was indeed an original one. Bea went ahead to purchase the painting due to the fact that Mr. Steven undervalued the painting by stating that he could not go for any amount that was less than $4,000. Bea knew in her mind that such a painting of such calibre could go up to $40,000. Nonetheless, Mr. Steven delivered the painting a weeks late than they had agreed in a porch that belonged to Bea. Unluckily, the painting’s canvas mildewed as a result of raining. Upon being inspected by an expert of artistic works, it was determined that the painting was not an original one. He approximated its price to be more than $400. Therefore, the issue at hand relates to the possible lying, a misappropriate conduct, where Steven sold a painting to Bea at $4,000 claiming that it was an original one. Nevertheless, after its canvas mildewed, an expert of art works noted that the painting was not original and its value was $400 only. Therefore, could Mr. Steven be saying the truth by claiming that the painting was an original one? On the other hand, could the result of the expert’s examination on the painting be valid where he claimed that the painting was not a master one? Rule Explanation The Australian law also enshrines all business dealings that take place among its citizens as well as to the outsiders. Therefore, the issue at hand can be as well handled legally under the Australian laws. For instance, there is the “Australian Consumer Law” The law prohibits misappropriate acts that are practiced during the time of carrying out any business practice (Bruce, 2010). The section of the law prohibits inappropriate practices that take place in the process of conducting a business (Pendleton et al., 2002). Some of the activities that are considered to unfair business practices entail giving out of misleading information or conducting oneself in a manner that is deceptive (Monahan, 2001). Others inappropriate business activities that are described under this law include the false representation as well as conducting oneself in an unconscionable manner (Golding, 1998). Briefly, the law requires a business person to conduct himself in a fair and an honest manner. Bea and Mr. Steven’s case can be subjected to this law to evaluate whether there was any fraud or bleaching of the abovementioned law. Mr. Steven claimed that his painting was an original master piece that was done by a world renowned artist. Therefore, he could not afford to sell it at a price of less than $4,000. Having in mind that it is rare to get such painting at the given price, Bea went ahead into purchasing it. Nonetheless, upon being delivered at a later date, the canvas of the painting mildewed after it rained. The occurrence got Bea suspicious of the painting’s credibility prompting her to get the technical assistance of an expert to evaluate credibility of the painting. Based on the result of the expert, it was determined that the painting was not an original one. He found out that the painting was done by a local artist and its value price was $400. The practice illuminates Mr. Steve as a business person who has bleached the Australian business law. He gave out misleading information to this potential customer and Bea fell into his trap unknowingly. She purchased the painting because she thought that it was unoriginal one. She even went ahead to inquiring whether it was a master’s art work and Mr. Steve confirmed it was indeed a master painting. Therefore, this represents a situation whereby Mr. Steve was not doing clean business contrary to what the Australian law has stated. Another law that could apply in this case is the business contract law. The law requires the business partners to abide by all steps that they had put in their agreement (Latimer & CCH Australia Limited, 2011). In case one partner fails to honour the contract, he is deemed to have bleached the contract law (Radan & Gooley, 2009). In this case, Mr. Steve could have bleached the agreement between him and Bea. The two parties had agreed that the painting should be delivered any time in the course of the following week. Mr. Steve did honour this agreement and delayed the delivery date by a week’s time. Instead, he delivered the painting in the following week. Nonetheless, the aspect that could portray him guilty is the fact that he was quick to carry out invoice initialization process by marking the painting as “paid.” The case at hand portrays another section of the Australian law was bleached which is the confidentiality law (Swain, & Rice, 2009). At this juncture, members are required to uphold confidentiality principle by not disclosing any information that is deemed confidential unless it has been necessitated by the law (Pendleton & Vickery, 1995). Bea’s case was a business contract whereby they agreed that painting could be delivered at a later date by Mr. Steve. The law requires one to keep the other party’s information confidential (Vickery & Flood, 2012). There should be no disclosing of such information through the legal means in case one feels that he has been short-changed by the other party (Smeureanu, 2011). Bea did not put into consideration this law upon suspecting that the painting could probably be not a master. Instead of using the legal framework, she went ahead into seeking expertise of another artist. The information that the expert gave out could be misleading and biased. It could also biased one that is based purely on seeking a competitive advantage angle. It could be possible that the painting could be an original one and that the expert gave unfair results towards Mr. Steve out of fear of competition. Bea’s action represents a situation whereby the confidentiality law was bleached. She ought to have understood that the expert was likely to give a biased conclusion out of fear of competition from his fellow artist. Analysis It is feasible to determine whether Mr. Steve was guilty of selling Bea the wrong painting by giving out misleading information. According to the “Australian consumer law,” Mr. Steve could be conducting business in a manner that cannot be trusted. He not only said but also indicated that the painting was a master one. On the other hand, upon delivering the artefact to Bea at a later date, the canvas mildewed. The scenario gives a clear indication that the painting could probably have not been done by an original master artists. The fact that Mr. Steve was quick to mark the painting as “paid” indicates a scenario whereby there existed some sought of suspicion in the business dealing. A week later, he had not delivered painting to Bea despite Bea having paid for it. Therefore, Mr. Steve bleached the contract by not honouring the requirements of the contract. This portrays some level of mistrust whereby the claims that Bea has indicated could be indeed true. The delay could be as a result of two things; one, the painting on the display could have been an original one and that Mr. Steve delayed deliberately while looking for an exact counterfeit in order to make more profit. On the other, he could be drawing an exact one which costs less compared to the master piece. All the misappropriate activities could be due to the fact he wanted to make more profit. The delay could also emanate out of fear that painting was fake and that Bea could come to know at a later date, requiring him to do more modification on it. Bea on the other hand could be guilty due to her failure to follow the legal procedure. Instead, she sought for assistance from an expert in art having in mind that the artistic could give biased conclusion due to rivalry. The painting could have been a master one. However, since the expert wanted to be at the competitive advantage, it could be likely that she gave out misleading information based on her examination. The importance of upholding confidentiality is deemed critical in this situation. Bea could be complicating the matter simply because she exposed her concerns to a third party. In this case, the party could be a biased being clear that there could be some sought of rivalry between him and Steve because they are both artists. Conclusion The case between Mr. Steve and Bea can easily be determined. The guilt seems to fall on Mr. Steve’s side to a number of reasons. He bleached the contract law by delivering the painting at a later date rather the one the two parties had agreed (Vickery Pendleton, 2008). The scenario gives a clear indication that the delivered painting was not a master one as Mr. Steve claimed. Secondly, the fact that the painting mildewed brings in another suspicion whether it was not a master one. Under normal circumstance, rarely does one hear of mildewing of a master paint because it is usually of high quality. It is based on these facts that Mr. Steve is found guilty of having sold fake painting claiming that it was a master one to Bea. References List Bruce, A. (2010). Consumer protection law in Australia. Chatswood, N.S.W: LexisNexis Butterworths Golding, J. (1998). Consumer protection law. Leichhardt, N.S.W: Federation Press Latimer, P. S., & CCH Australia Limited. (2011). Australian business law 2012. North Ryde, N.S.W: CCH Australia Monahan, G. (2001). Essential contract law. Sydney, N.S.W: Cavendish Pendleton, W., & Vickery, R. (1995). Australian Business Law: Principles and applications. Sydney: Prentice Hall Pendleton, W., Pendleton, W., & Vickery, R. (2002). Australian business law: Principles and applications, update 2002. Sydney: Prentice Hall Radan, P., & Gooley, J. (2009). Principles of Australian contract law. Chatswood, N.S.W: LexisNexis Butterworths Smeureanu, I. M. (2011). Confidentiality in international commercial arbitration. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International Swain, P. A., & Rice, S. (2009). In the shadow of the law: The legal context of social work practice. Annandale, N.S.W: The Federation Press Vickery, R., & Flood, M. A. (2012). Australian business law: Compliance and practice. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W: Pearson Australia Vickery, R., & Pendleton, W. (2008). Australian business law: Principles and applications. Sydney, N.S.W.: Prentice Hall Read More