Richard has a specialist car dealership. He buys old cars, refurbishes them and then sells them. He also hires out cars.
Richard is restoring an old jeep. It requires a special type of shock-absorber to enable it to travel over rough ground. Richard phones Shocks Are Us. He says to Emma, the manager: “I need four shock absorbers which can be used for off-road driving” Emma consults a brochure published by the shock absorber manufacturer and “Says the D200 shock absorber can be used for off-road driving.”. Richard then agrees to buy four D200 shock absorbers for $ 120 each. When he installs them on the jeep and takes it for a test drive over rough country, the shock absorbers give way and the jeep crashes down, causing $ 2 000 worth of damage to its body. It turns out that when Emma gave Richard the information over the phone, she had been looking at the wrong page of the brochure. Had she looked at the correct page, she would have seen that the D200 is not suitable for off-road driving.
Richard operates his business from a premises which he has leased from George for $ 5 000 per month since January 2016. The lease specifies that the rent is to be paid to George every six months and that it will increase every year by 10%. Richard pays George $ 30 000 in June 2016 and December 2016, but then tells George that he is having financial difficulties and needs every dollar he can to buy equipment. George says “OK, I will let you off paying the increase this year”. Richard is pleased with this, and uses the money he would have had to spend on the rent increase to buy new tools. In June 2017, Richard pays $ 30 000 to George, but George contacts him demanding an additional $ 3 000. When Richard refers to their earlier conversation, George says “Whatever I said, the lease you signed specifies that the rent will go up by 10% each year”.
Tom is a collector of vintage cars. He sees that Richard has a 1979 Mercedes 450SEL for sale on his website, priced at $ 20 000. Tom sends Richard an email saying “I offer to buy the 1979 Mercedes 450SEL for $ 18 500”. Richard sends an email back saying “Sorry, that is not enough, but I will sell it to you for $ 19 000”. Tom sends an email back saying “No, I can’t pay that”. Richard then sends an email saying “OK, I accept your original offer of $ 18 500”, but when he brings the car to Tom’s house, Tom refuses to accept it or to pay the money.
When Richard goes on holiday, Martin looks after his car lot. Martin doesn’t have a car. However, a friend of Martin’s is about to visit town and he wants to be able to drive her around. Martin goes to Richard and says “Can I hire one of your cars?” Richard says “The usual price is $ 50 per day, but because you looked after my car lot in August, you can hire it at no cost. You can pick it up on Monday”. Martin is very pleased and readily agrees, but when he comes to pick up the car, Richard says that he has hired it out to a customer. Martin says that Richard has breached their agreement.
Advise Richard of his legal position in relation to each of these four scenarios. You should assume that all facts given would be provable if the matters came to court. You should also assume that when any of the people mentioned conduct business, they do so as sole traders, not through corporations.
Answers:
A. Issues
Issue 1: Emma, a manager of Shocks Are the US, had suggested Richard purchase four shock absorber adapters for his jeep's off-road driving at the cost of $480. But, the jeep of Richard met with an accident when he took his vehicle for a test drive after installation of adapters. The crash of jeep incurred damage of $2000. So, the question arises who would be liable for the loss. On the other hand, would Richard be liable for any compensating?
Issue 2: George has provided rent for a premise at the cost of $5000 per month to Richard. In a gap of six months, the rent of the premise is supposed to be increased by 10%. George has agreed and permitted to Richard for not been able to pay an incremented rent for the month of June due to low income from Richard's own business. But, in June 2017, George gave a call to Richard and demanded $4300 extra from Richard. George did not agree to any verbal; contract and lease paper specification would be held. A breach of contract might be considered in this case.
Issue 3\ In another case, Richard has discarded an offer of Tom of $18500 initially and demand for $19000. Richard agreed to a previous offer when Tom was unable to make payment of amount demanded by him. Accordingly, Tom does not accept the car bought by Richard to have place neither agreed to pay any amount.
Issue 4: In the month of August, Martin looks after Richards’s; Martin has been permitted to borrow the car for a while without any payments. However, Richard’s said the car had gone on hire when Martin came to pick up the car. There has been a breach of contract as per Martin.
B. Laws
Section 18 A of Contracts Act 1999 and section 14 of Sales of Goods Act 1979, an oral commitment could be stated as a contract (Contract Disputes - John Antell – Barrister, 2017). Such contracts are equally punishable if breached like a written contract. An example of Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Limited T/A Entertainment Group vs Lombard North Central (2012), the damaged mount of $2000 is liable to be paid by Shock on US company. Richard can be liable to get the compensation amount as per the word of mouth law if there is written documented presented by him.
In the second case, from the reference of Thomas KELLOGG v Cindy SHUSHEREBA (2013), an alleged amount is forcefully paid by Oren '(Findlaw's Supreme Court of Vermont Case and Opinions, 2018). According to section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, Richard is forceful to make payment of $3000; if George approaches court and claims, there was no wave off given. However, if Richard is able to place a witness for oral communication with George, the amount to be paid by Richard might be reduced.
In the third case, with reference to Uber v Aslam, the employment tribunal did not make a stand in front of an appeal made by drivers of Uber. The case highlights the consideration of the issue of pre-booked products. Tom did not enter into a written agreement or contract with Richard. The Product liability and Safety law it is necessary to put a contract with a buyer while confirming a purchase. As this was not done, Richard’s appeal for contract breach might be rejected if he proceeds to court.
The case of Bolton v Mahadeva (1972), the complainant received the amount mentioned in contract deducting the damaged amount (Bolton V Mahadeva 2018). Likewise, Martin can appeal that Richard has not kept his commitment. However, the judge might rule out to solve the disagreement among them for the complainant and the accuser.
C Application
In the first case, the Sales of Goods Act 1979 and Contracts Law 1999 might be referred and used. The Contract Law (section 3) 1999, she could be saved by the promissory element of the case. But, with an indication of Contract Law (section 2) 1999, the third party of the case Richard may appeal for the liability of loss he has suffered should be entirely blamed to Emma. Section 8 and section 5 of the similar law also may be applicable for this case. In that case, Emma would have higher chances to win the case.
The second case can take suggestions from the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (article 3A), a written notice about the financial status would have been presented by Richard to his owner. Since, Richard has not been able to present any written document about the wave off of George, the case likely to go in favour of the landlord. The contract law of the UK does not consider a word of the mount as unconditional agreement, which can be related to the third case of Tom have not agreed to make any payment. So, bringing the car at the doorstep of Tom is completely liable to Richard. In the case of Martin, for a consumer credit judge can be considered a verbal communication as an agreement or contract. The verbal conversation between Martin and Richard might be considered a strong case if Martin approaches the court. However, the case is not considered a severe or serious act of breach; it might be a rightful decision of the court to solve the dispute between Martin and Richard by themselves out of the court.
D. Conclusion
The study analyzed by our contracts law assignment help experts focused on different case scenarios, which has been presented, discussed and solved with reference to different acts under British law. Different laws and acts have been presented to understand each of the case and the proper verdict has also been justified in according to different sections of the law. There were some old solved cases has also been used for referring and justifying the verdict of each case given, Under the cases discussed, the primary laws such as English contract law, Sales of Goods law, customer protection law, Landlord and Tenant law has been used to understand and solve the presented cases. Also, possible court scenarios are also highlighted for the cases if the complainant approaches the court of law. Apart from this solution you can get professional law assignment help from our experienced experts in any area and field of law studies.
Reference
'Contract Disputes - John Antell - Barrister' (Johnantell.co.uk, 2018) accessed 3 December 2017
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd (T/A Air Entertainment Group) V Lombard North Central Plc [2012] EWHC 3162 (QB) (09 November 2012)' (Bailii.org, 2018) accessed 14 November 2017
3Https://Assets.Publishing.Service.Gov.Uk/Media/5A046b06e5274a0ee5a1f171/Uber_B.V._And_Others_V_Mr_Y_Aslam_And_Others_UKEAT_0056_17_DA.Pdf (2018)
'Findlaw's Supreme Court Of Vermont Case And Opinions.' (Findlaw, 2018) accessed 15 November 2017
Bolton V Mahadeva' (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2018) accessed 9 November 2017
Private Renting - GOV.UK' (Gov.uk, 2018) accessed 30 November 2017
Electronic Law Journals - JILT 2002 (2) - Desai Et Al' (Warwick.ac.uk, 2018) accessed 17
Login
Pages: 4
Words: 890