Cntrt Law: Analysis of Film Fun Plc and Goliath Plc - Case Study Example

Cоntrасt law рrоblеm question- customer seller- beware Name Institution Case; Film Fun Plc and Goliath Plc Advice: It is evident that Film Fun plc went hiring the film, ‘The Bluest Blood’, whereby Fiona contracted with Goliath Plc. Goliath Plc has put a beware sign on the yellow backboard as a warning statement to customers to avoid making the Goliath Plc liable for any loss suffered. In addition, Goliath Plc acted negligently by delaying to deliver the film hired by Film Fun Plc, thus suffering great losses and more than the hire charges of hiring the film from Harry’s Films Plc. Harry’s Films Plc was charging lower hire price compared to Goliath Plc, but because of the perception of Goliath Plc producing films of higher quality than Harry’s Films Plc, Film Fun Plc had no option but to leave Harry’s Films Plc and go for Goliath Plc. Additionally, Goliath Plc used to settle customers’ claims for all sums beyond the hire charge, but after including the beware sign, it is no longer doing so. Before hiring the film, it is necessary for customers to seek to know everything associated with the film’s quality, delivery issues, and the responsibilities of the consumer and those ones of the seller. In this case, it is clear that Film Fun Plc has suffered entirely, readily, and foreseeable losses because it thought to have access to the film on time and make its desired suppliers to collected the expected revenue. It is probable that Film Fun Plc had planned on how to supply the film and set aside its expected revenue within a certain period. However, due to the delay caused by Goliath Plc, Film Fun Plc started regretting not hiring the film from Harry’s Films Plc despite their poor quality in sound and viewing. If Film Fun Plc had gone to hire the film from Harry’s Films Plc, it might have suffered the problems of customer complaints associated with viewing and sound quality, but it would have managed to supply the film as per the expectations. It is evident that Goliath Plc had put an exclusion statement on the wall of the offices and expected customers to read the statement by themselves to ensure that Goliath Plc is not liable for any damage or loss suffered1. On the other hand, Fiona the operator of Film Fun Plc went to the Goliath Plc offices to hire the required film, ‘The Bluest Blood’. However, due to colour blindness problem, Fiona was not able to see the sign and read before engaging into a contract with Goliath Plc. Fiona on the other hand did not show any concern of wanting to know more about the film delivery and other hiring terms and conditions from Goliath Plc’s attendants. The issue is associated with caveat emptor meaning, “let the buyer beware2.” It is a contract law principle requiring the buyer to act on the jurisdiction of performing due diligence before taking the step of purchasing or hiring a product. The principle requires the buyer to take his or her initiative and enquire all the details associated with the product and service before making the decision of purchasing or hiring the products. It is a term that is majorly applied in businesses where customers are likely to suffer losses and damages resulting from the conduct of the seller preventing the seller’s liability. In most cases, the investors that apply the exclusive statement try to push all the liability to the buyer or the consumer and avoiding being charged for their negligence. Film Fun Plc is liable for its loss because Fiona failed to read the customer beware sign that was on the walls of the offices of Goliath Plc and despite the fact that she was not seeing well, she did not bother asking the operator anything beyond the hire charge3. However, Fiona was not in a condition to read the statement because she was having a colour blindness, which prevented her from seeing the blue print on the yellow backboard, thus leading to damages to Film Fun Plc4. Fiona did not request to know more about the hiring requirements from Goliath, which would be necessary to avoid the damage. Film Fun Plc should claim damages because despite the presence of the seller beware, Goliath Plc reacted negligently by delaying the delivery of the hired film and yet Film Fun Plc had paid the full hire charges as agreed. In addition, Film Fun Plc knew that Goliath Plc was settling customer claims that used to be excess of the hire charges, though it is not previously doing so. It was the responsibilities of Goliath Plc to deliver the film on time and to demonstrate care to its customers when they place orders by allowing them understand the time when the films would be ready for delivery. However, from the perception that the exclusion statement was saving Goliath Plc the liability of meeting the customers claims for the damages caused by its negligence, Goliath Plc attendants failed to demonstrate reasonable care when offering services to customers. Fiona is responsible for gathering all the information associated with hiring the film from Goliath Plc in order to make an informed hiring decision, but she failed to do so because of the trust she had towards Goliath Plc. This is as per the concept of buyer beware, as it applied in the case of (Hardy and another v Griffiths and another [2014] EWHC 394). She was supposed to ask Goliath Plc’s operator the duration that the film would take to arrive and whether something might lead o its delay among other information. She was also needed to enquire more about her responsibilities concerning the hiring of the film. Since Fiona simple hired the film after knowing the hire charge and paying for it and made no effort to enquire more information, Goliath Plc is not liable for the damages, which is under the contract law principle of caveat emptor. Goliath Plc could be liable if Fiona asked about all the details related to hiring of the film and Goliath Plc’s workers fail to show her the statement on the wall or tell her more about the particular statement. In business sector practice, there could be many exceptions to the same principle. For instance, if Goliath Plc had not put the buyer beware sign on the wall, it would be responsible of the loss suffered by Film Fun Plc. If Fiona asked something about the film and its delivery and Goliath Plc had lied anything about the quality of the film, it would be liable for the issues associated with the film sound and viewing quality and Fiona would not have been entitled to the damages. The market forces tend to act in minimising the relevance of caveat emptor in different market cases. As it was the issue in (Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (NY App. Div. 1991)), if the seller offers a quality product to the buyer, the seller will not be required to provide some refunds or any replacement soon and this makes the buyer to be inclined in choosing the particular vendors on the basis of the quality perception. In this case, Film Fun Plc did not hire the film from Harry’s Films Plc because of its habit of offering films of low quality. However, hiring the film from Goliath plc was costly compared to the hire charge Film Fun Plc would have paid in Harry’s Films Plc5. In addition, if Fiona went to Harry’s Films Plc, Film Fun Plc might have accessed the film on time and avoid meeting the losses that it suffered by contracting with Goliath plc. Film Fun Plc’s perception of Goliath having films of more good quality compared to Harry’s Films Plc is what drove them to incurring the losses. The contract law and the judges are supposed to push back adjacent to the contract law principle of caveat emptor for enhanced protection to the consumer’s interest. As it was the problem in (Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (1887)), the customer was not aware of the likeliness of suffering damage and did not manage to identify the consumer beware sign. When investors are putting the exclusive clauses in their documents and statements in their walls of the offices, they expect all the consumers to have the ability to read the statements, interpret them, and understand the terms and conditions. However, such investors do not consider the cases of people with disabilities, such as seeing and reading, or language barrier6. Fiona in this case had not ability to read the blue print on the yellow backboard because of her colour blindness. Same was identified in (Wood v. Boynton, 64 Wis. 265, 25 N.W. 42 (1885)). The buyer should be entitled to widely standardised and clear information associated with a certain product. It is widely noticed that many investors tend to apply the statement referred to as “safe harbour statement” that is as per the safeguards aligned with the companies that are capable of deceiving their potential customers about their products and quality of their services. It is evident that Goliath Plc knew that customers were complaining and was responsible in meeting their claims because of its inefficient services to customers. It is evident that the conduct of Goliath Plc’s workers was bad and led to many customers claiming damages and the film producer was responsible in compensating the infringed customers7. Goliath Plc decided to stop the issue of being liable for compensating the losses suffered by its customers, thus the application of the harbour statement or the exclusion statement that was put on the walls of the offices8. Ultimately, Goliath Plc decided to apply the buyer beware statement to be safe from any loss or damage caused to the customers associated with delivery of the films and film quality. Consequently, the workers in Goliath Plc continued acting negligently to the customers whereby they would not care for the delayed delivery of the films ordered or the quality of the films. At some times, the buyer beware statement and some legally mandated reports tend to accompany and see through the conduct of the principle of caveat emptor stating that the customer was expected to have access to the entire information that one needs to make a reasonable and critical decision9. Fiona in this case had the information put on the wall in the form of a buyer beware statement but from the fact that she was not in a position to see well, she did not make the decision of contracting with Goliath Plc from the guidance of the statement. In some places, the principle of caveat emptor used to be applicable in the past than they are currently. This is because of the habit of the investors deceiving clients and claiming to be protected by the exclusive clause. However as it was the issue in (Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942)), the 1979 Sale of Goods Act offers consumers some stringent protection more extended in some areas than in others. Assuming no negligent has been committed by Goliath Plc, Film Fun Plc, came with expectations that Goliath Plc is liable for all losses and damages as for the film, consume beware. However, Goliath did not play its responsibility to the consumer as a seller of meeting the agreements and offering good customer service. Even if Goliath had placed the exclusive statement on the wall, it was not supposed to act negligently by delaying in the delivery of the ordered film by Film Fun Plc10. Goliath Plc was supposed to deliver the ordered film on time and enable Film Fun Plc make its supplies as per the expectations when it went to contract with Goliath Plc leaving Harry’s Films Plc. Caveat emptor does not protect Goliath Plc from negligently delaying the delivery of the ordered film neither does it protect Film Fun Plc from contracting with Goliath Plc and ending up with regrets for not contracting with Harry’s Films Plc11. If Fiona the operator at Film Fun Plc enquired about all the information related with the film hiring and Goliath Plc workers fail to read the statement for her, Goliath Plc would be liable for the damage suffered by Film Fun Plc. Additionally, is was the responsibility of Goliath Plc to deliver the film on time but it failed to do so. This means that caveat emptor principle of contract law does not protect Goliath Plc because of acting negligently. Conclusion Acting negligently makes Goliath Plc to be liable for the loss suffered by Film Fun Plc because if it showed some care, it would have delivered the film on time despite the presence of the customer beware statement. Fiona entered into the contract of hiring the film from Goliath plc without knowing that there was an exclusive clause or statement on the walls of the offices. According to the 1979 Consumer Protection Act, Film Fun Plc should be compensated for the hire charges. The concept of buyer beware should also be applied to lessen the damage met by Goliath because it is the duty of the customer to get all the information associated with the purchase of hiring of a product before making the purchase decision. It is evident that Fiona failed to identify the statement because of her colour blindness, thus not liable for the loss suffered by Film Fun Plc. If Fiona was in a good position of seeing and reading the statement on the wall and failed to do so, she could be liable for the particular damage. In general Goliath should meet Film Fun Plc’s claim. Bibliography Burlingame, Nancy B. "New York State Warranties on Sales of New Homes Act: From Caveat Emptor to Statutory Warranty Protection." Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development 4, no. 2 (2012): 6. Chau, K. W., and Lennon HT Choy. "Let the buyer or seller beware: measuring lemons in the housing market under different doctrines of law governing transactions and information." Journal of Law and Economics 54, no. 4 (2011): S347-S365. Crowfoot, Josh. "Seller Beware: Making Necessary Revisions to the South Carolina Seller Disclosure Statement and South Carolina Residential Property Condition Disclosure Act." Charleston L. Rev. 6 (2011): 599. Dapiran, Antony. "Buyer beware!." ArtAsiaPacific 95 (2015): 167. Lefcoe, George. "Property Condition Disclosure Forms: How the Real Estate Industry Eased the Transition from Caveat Emptor to'Seller Tell All'." USC Legal Studies Research Papers Series 04-9 (2014). Lookofsky, Joseph. "Cator Can't Compete: Caveat Emptor Under CISG Article 35 (3)?." Cator Can’t Compete: Caveat Emptor under CISG Article 35, no. 3 (2014). Cases Browning v. Johnson, 70 Wash.2d 145, 422 P.2d 314 (Wash. 1967) Congregation Kadimah Toras-Moshe v. DeLeo, 405 Mass. 365, 540 N.E.2d 691 (Mass. 1989). Hardy and another v Griffiths and another [2014] EWHC 394 Hayes v. Plantations Steel Co., 438 A.2d 1091, 1094 (R.I. 1982). Konic International Corp. v. Spokane Computer Services, Inc., 109 Idaho 527, 708 P.2d 932 (1985) Sherwood v. Walker, 66 Mich. 568, 33 N.W. 919 (1887) Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254 (NY App. Div. 1991). Swinton v. Whitinsville Savings Bank, 42 N.E.2d 808 (1942 Thomas v. Thomas (1842) 2 Q.B. 851, 114 E.R. 330. Wood v. Boynton, 64 Wis. 265, 25 N.W. 42 (1885) Read More