Business Law Case Study
Liability is a concept that puts responsibility upon persons. In the legal realm liability is bestowed upon different individuals or groups depending on the responsibility conferred upon them by their positions and their acts are expected to meet certain standards. The law does not allow somebody to limits liabilities unless in few circumstances which have characteristics that have shown the need for their limitations. The unfair contract terms act of 1977 is a United Kingdom act of parliament which governs contracts by putting restriction on their operations and legal validity of some terms of contract.
The major function of the act is limitation of the applicability of the disclaimer of liability (Bays, 2001). The act extends to almost all forms of contract and the terms ranges from actual contract terms to notices that carries contractual obligation. The unfair contract terms act renders ineffective terms that exclude or limit liabilities.Some of the liability that the unfair contract terms act states that they cannot be excluded or limited includes the liability for death or injury which is not permitted in any circumstances. Liability for losses which is occurs as a result of negligence cannot be exclude unless in reasonable circumstances. The liability for poor and defective goods cannot be excluded unless in reasonable circumstances. The reasonableness is taken to mean all formalities of the contract and the legality as well as necessary information to both parties to the contract (Harold and Lusk, 1996).Remi is supposed to know that he has a legal obligation towards all the customers who goes to his bar.
The obligation is extended by the common law of tort that bestows a duty of care to the premises owner. If the premises owner breeches that duty and it results to an injury of the customers he is supposed to be held liable. The unfair contract act also strengthens the obligation by excluding the disclaimer of the liability which occrs in the premises and other places of work. In this case Remi has a liability regarding jenny. Being a customer at this place the relation ship of the customer relationship exists (Bays, 2001). The relationship is the base upon which a legal liability arises. It is clear that Jenny was injured by some boxes of tequila that are allegedly left on the stage due to negligence. The liability occurs when Jenny is injured in the bar.
The injury is one that is foreseeable. The boxes are left negligently in a place where they can cause some possible foreseeable injuries. It is expected that a reasonable person would have kept the boxes on their right place to avoid any injury. Negligence confers liability to person who acts without due care. In a court of law Remi is to be compelled to pay damages to Jenny. As indicated above, the fact that there is a disclaimer in the bar that excludes Remi from any liability that occurs in the bar cannot stand in the court of law. Remi is estopelled from citing the disclaimer as the defense for the liability by the unfair contract terms act of 1977. Rime’s case is one that occurs as a result of negligence and as such is one that the term states as exclusion to the avoidance of liability clause.
It is therefore clear that Jenny can seek for redress and get compensated for the personal injury in her body as well the time she lost when she is admitted in hospital for two weeks. She can also seek redress for the expensive watch that was destroyed in the incident.To conclude on the Rime’s case, he is supposed to know that the disclaimer remains ineffective so long as he continues with that business and he is wholly liable for the losses and injuries that occur therein.Sale of goods act is an act that regulates the transfer of goods from the seller to the buyer. It is an act that contains the conditions fundamental essential required for a sale to be considered legally complete. It provides the basis upon which either of the parties to the contract can enforce the other to perform the necessary actions as per the sale of goods contract. In our case the contract of the sale is legal and complete. The buyer, Tania Oleg is has agreed to go by the terms provided by the sell, Peter.
She agrees to buy the guitar even after he is made to know that the authentication certificate had not arrived. She even tells the sell Peter, with no uncertain terms that she is a specialist and knows all about the Fender Stratocaster that is being sold. When she agrees to buy the guitar, that is considered a legally binding sale agreement with all the formalities put in pace (Bays, 2001). By returning the following week and asking for the full refund of the money does not constitute any legal base. Remi cannot be compelled to refund the money. This is because all the requirement of the law contract has been met. First she agrees to buy the guitar after she properly scrutinizing it and ascertains that it the one she requires. It is considered that she has seen all the characteristics and the conditions of the guitar and she can not later say that it is not the on e she wanted.
She is alleging to be a specialist [and says that there is no point to wait for the authentication certificate.The issue of the consideration called price herein, is also unenforceable. Tania Oleg accepts the offer to buy the guitar at the given price. She is considered a person of capacity to contract and any decision she makes towards the buying of the guitar is legally acceptable. Therefore, Remi is under no obligation to refund the money to Tania and there is no rule under the sale of good that can be enforced to compel him to make the refund. In fact, depending on the kind of sale, some disclaimer can be give to affect that once goods are sold are not refundable. The sale between Peter and Tania can qualify to be one of the kinds. This disclaimer is given where the buyer is given time to completely insect the goods and buy them the way they are in their condition .
ion that case if the buyer agrees to buy and later realize something that is not as per the expectation, he is not allowed to return the goods.In a court of law Remi can raise the defense that Tania Oleg is legally capable of making a contract. She has attained the age of the majority and fit for contract. She is also one not under any undue influence or duress or under any alcohol influence at the time the contract was entered into. She is also a person of sound mind and she is even said to be in the business therefore experienced (Bays, 2001). Tania cannot enforce any law against the seller because he refused to wait for the authentication certificate to confirm that the guitar is actually one she wanted.It is not sufficient to say that Tania relied on the skills of the shop because in the first place he never consulted them and even if she did, she not ready to wait for clear clarification of the details of the guitar. She claimed to be a specialist and she relies on her own expertise which fails her.
She cannot therefore put the blame to the seller, Peter or the Owner of the premises, Remi.Remi has no legally binding contract with the Ear ltd over the sale of the music system. For a contract to be legally binding, it must have two fundamental components. First, it must have an agreement which constitutes the offer, counter offer and finally the consensus. An agreement can be done in writing or still better orally. Secondly the contract must contain what is referred to as consideration which is the price. Within the above two components is the other provisions that complements the legality of the contract. This will include offer, terms, conditions, payment terms, performance among many others.
In our case the agreement part of the contract has not been reached. Remi makes the offer to buy the music system at a price that is lower than the price stated by the seller. The seller refuses to accept the offer and at this point there is no contract made since there is no consensus. Remi offered to buy the music system at the initially stated price. The seller, Ear ltd did not accept to the offer and therefore no contract was signed between the two parties since for a contract to exist an offer must be accepted.Later the seller decided to raise the price of the music system and the buyer has no right to compel the seller to sell the system to him at the initial price. The Ear ltd had not committed to sell the system to the Remi because they must again come to a point of consensus. In this case therefore the first condition is not met because although Remi offered to buy the system the seller did not accept to sell.
The issue of time is also very important. By the time the nail was getting to the seller to accept the offer to sell it at the initially stated price the conditions of the sale had changed .this therefore means that the contract is void because it never existed in the first place. This can not have any legal obligation to the seller to contain any liability to the seller.Secondly, the other concept to make the contract legally a legally binding one is the consideration. It has not bee reached at because it is a concept that can only come after the parties to the contract have had offer and acceptance. Therefore the amount that was to be paid does not raise concern at this point in time as far as the contract is concerned (Harold and Lusk, 1996).All other elements of the contract may have been present but if one of them is missing it translates the whole contract not legally binding.
The buyer, Remi cannot therefore sue the company for selling the music system to another person. One cannot sue for a contract that was not initially made. The bases for the argument are that the Ear ltd did not accept the offer by the buyer to sell it at any price (Harold and Lusk, 1996).In the court of law the ear ltd will deny having any obligation to Remi as contractual obligations arises when all the formal procedures are met. In this case the contract is non existence. The seller can also claim that by the time the seller agreed to buy the system the conditions of the sale had changed and the seller had no met them. The buyer assumed that the contract was made by the silence of the seller forgetting that silence does not constitute communicationRemi has no binding contract with the Ear ltd and to conclude he has no grounds to take them to court for any reason. If the contract had been entered then Remi would have had base for the argument.
Get access to
Guarantee No Hidden