Assessment 1B - Research Assignment - James Greig PDF

Preview

Summary

Assessment 1B - Research Assignment - James Greig...

Description

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment

James Greig LAW10004: Introduction to Business Law

Introduction The basis of this report is to assess the two scenarios provided as if you were a business lawyer and offer advice. In each scenario we will identify which laws are impacted whether its contract law, torts, Australian Consumer law, intellectual property, business entities, business ownership and employment issues.

Scenario 1 The legal issue here is whether Michelle can sue David for breach of contract for the letter sent to her on 1st April. Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a form of civil wrong, where a bargained for exchange or binding agreement is not honoured by one or more parties or interfered by another party’s performance. For Michelle to successfully sue David she must prove that David di d in fact break the agreement set out in the letter and decided to pursue another sale influenced by the third party (Peter). The law also here can be referred to the Postal Rule. The letter sent to Michelle from David would be contractually binding if either of the letters sent from Michelle were received by David prior to 15th April or prior to the sale on 16th April. As per the precedence set in Adams vs Lindsell, 1it must be considered the offerors were making the offer to the plaintiffs during every moment the letter was in the post. In conclusion Michelle has grounds to sue due to breach of contract, the letter sent as a reply that was lost in the post is considered as a contractual agreement. 1

Norman A. Zilber, "Contracts: Offer and Acceptance: Effect of Post Office Regulations on Adams V. Lindsell

Doctrine" (1956) 54(4) Michigan Law Review.

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment | James Greig

Page 1 of 5

The next issue is whether or not David sold Michelle’s property, also known as tort of conversion. If Michelle and myself can prove that there was a contract breach then it would consider David could be sued for damages. Conversion is a deliberate tort where the taking with intent over the chattel an ownership varying from the real owners right of possession 2. If Michelle can prove that the letter was in fact a contract, then it would be hard for David to disprove that this tort took place. David intentionally sold Michelle’s property to Peter knowing that he had entered an agreement with Michelle. As per the precedence set in Betterment Properties v Dorset County, One who effectively prevents the exercise of intangible rights of the kind customarily merged in a document is subject to a liability similar to that for conversion, even though the document is not itself converted 3. Inconclusion Michelle was indeed the owner of the equipment and it was intentionally sold to a third party (Peter).

2

Sarah Green, "To Have And To Hold? Conversion And Intangible Property" (2008) 71(1) The Modern Law Review

3

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited v Dorset County Council [2007] [2007] EWHC 365 (Ch).

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment | James Greig

Page 2 of 5

Scenario 2 The legal issue here is whether Jeremy can sue the manufacturer of the microwave oven, Boom Co for product liability negligence. The law product liability negligence can be defined as manufacturer, distributors, suppliers and retailers are held responsible for any injuries or damage caused to private property 4. Due to the microwave oven causing $3500 worth of damage and the product did not operate as it should Jeremy should be successful. The microwave only being used 5 times before suffering a major fault can be argued in civil court as per the Australian Consumer Law Act 2010. As judges’ comments in Harrington v. Dow Corning Corp, due to the claim being based on negligence, it is worthwhile to review the duty of care owed by the product manufacturers and designers 5. This will be the defendant’s responsibility to establish whether negligence or strict liability occurred. Regardless of which tort is pursed Jeremy is entitled to compensation for damages and any costs incurred in the pursual of compensation.

4

5

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law') Jason Mohrbutter, "Harrington V. Dow Corning Corp. And Social Utility: Unfit For Their Purpose Within Product

Liability Negligence Law" (2012) 75(2) Saskatchewan Law Review, see page 271.

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment | James Greig

Page 3 of 5

The next issue in this scenario is One Stop Shop giving Jeremy false or misleading information regarding the smart TV. Misleading or deceptive conduct is where a corporation or supplier gives false or deceptive information regarding a service or product to the consumer 6. In this case the defendant claimed the smart TV manufactured by Samsunk was in fact a smart TV and was Australia ‘s top selling brand. In my opinion Jeremy would have a strong case, the TV is advertised as a Smart TV although it does not have the functions of a Smart TV. The Salesman referred to the brand as the “best Australian brand” and it had “great reviews”. This information is both misleading and false, precedence was set in the case Barnes v Forty Two International Pty Limited. The judge deemed that the trade practises by the defendant were misleading and false, which resulted in the plaintiff receiving an inferior product 7. In conclusion the salesperson has intentionally provided false and misleading information which lead to the purchase of an inferior product and not what was advertised.

Conclusion The assignment asked whether the two scenarios had any contract law, torts, Australian Consumer law, intellectual property, business entities, business ownership and employment issues. I have found a number of issues, which I have provided laws and application based on the information given and references used.

6

Brenda Marshall, "Liability for Unconscionable and Misleading Conduct in Commercial Dealings: Balancing

Commercial Morality And Individual Responsibility" (1995) 7(2) Bond Law Review. 7

Barnes v Forty Two International Pty Limited [2014] FCA 85.

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment | James Greig

Page 4 of 5

Bibliography Zilber, Norman A., "Contracts: Offer And Acceptance: Effect Of Post Office Regulations On Adams V. Lindsell Doctrine" (1956) 54(4) Michigan Law Review Green, Sarah, "To Have And To Hold? Conversion And Intangible Property" (2008) 71(1) The Modern Law Review Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Limited v Dorset County Council [2007] [2007] EWHC 365 (Ch) Mohrbutter, Jason, "Harrington V. Dow Corning Corp. And Socical Utility: Unfit For Their Purpose Within Product Liability Negligence Law" (2012) 75(2) Saskatchewan Law Review Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 ('Australian Consumer Law') Marshall, Brenda (1995) "Liability for Unconscionable and Misleading Conduct in Commercial Dealings: Balancing Commercial Morality and Individual Responsibility," Bond Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 3 Barnes v Forty Two International Pty Limited [2014] FCA 85

Assessment 1B: Research Assignment | James Greig

Page 5 of 5...