Contract Law Legal Advice Example

Contract Law jural Advice ExampleLegal Advice1. The storehouse is relying on an exemption clause. Customer A is likely to swallow a refine against the fink under schedule 3 of the unjust Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999) which disallows a business to exclude a consumers legal rights. In this instance, client A may seek supply under the trade of Goods work on 1979 s 14 (2) (goods must be of satisfactory quality) as amended by the Sale of Goods Act 1994 if the graze does not assist her.2. Customer B may be fitted to rely on undue cast, the main fountain being bailiwick Westminster Bank v Morgan where it was held the take onant must not suffer from manifest disadvantage. unwarrantable influence simply means unfair pressure on a officey when forming a contract. The defecate may argue there was no spare similarityship between the parties, in which discipline it is for client B to prove this (Williams v Bayley). Following the decision in Lloyds Bank v Bun dy, the question may be whether there was inequality of bargaining strong point the shop class acted as an agency for the HP financers. In this case, the creditor (financers) may be unable to enforce the contract against customer B (Kingsnorth Trust v Bell) if customer B can successfully plea undue influence then the contract may be rendered voidable (set aside).3. In relation to customer C, she may be able to rely on the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, which states under s.13, that the goods must be as described (see Beale v Taylor). in that respect must be a reliance on the description of goods as decided in Grant v Australian Knitting mill Ltd, but in this instance the customer is entitled to a remedy against the shop.4. Customer D is seeking to bring a complaint for double-dealing misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Stating that the kidminders were qualified is a pretended statement of fact (Bisset v Wilkinson ). Defined in Derry v Peek, dish geniusst misrepresentation is a statement where there are several factors, one of which is a reckless statement made with stunned caring whether it was true or not. In this instance, the shop is likely for all damages, including all loss, to the customer (Smith New Court Securities v Scrimgeour Vickers).5. Neighbours are seeking to complain all over a private nuisance. It can be defined as continuous, nefarious and indirect interference with a psyches enjoyment of overthrow Balance must be stuck between conflicting interests, namely the shop needing its deliveries and the neighbours peace in the morning. Has the duration being continuous? (Bolton v Stone) The shop being aware of the problem, if it fails to address the issue, then it may be liable for nuisance (Leakey v National Trust).6. The shop has a transaction of dread under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, s 2 (1) towards visitors, in this case invitees to the shop (s. 1 (2)). The shop must espouse reasonable steps to inform a visitor that an area is out of bounds. It did so in this case, with the notice on the door. Under s. 2 (3) (a) of the olla 1957, the shop must be prepared for children to be less scrupulous than an adult. However, the shop is entitled to be assured that the behaviour of a boylike child should be supervised by an adult (Phipps v Rochester Corporation). Therefore, this part of the claim may fail since the mother did not keep her child under supervision.In relation to her claim for nervous shock, there is a 3 stage test as outlined in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, namely a). Was the mother in competent proximate time and space to the incident? b) There must be close ties of love and affection to the victim c) The claimant must have seen or heard the incident or its immediate aftermath. As all these answers are in the affirmative, then it is likely this part of the claim may be successful against the store.7. The shop is liable for injury to F under the Employers Liability Act 1969, s1. F is no longer required to survey the manufacturer as the shop has informed her, although she may do so if she wishes. F (employee) must show a) That the blot in the equipment caused the accident and b) That the defect was due to a fault in the manufacture. In this part, the employer is liable instantly to F.With Fs claims for bullying, the shop is liable under vicarious liability, since this is a tort by an employee acting in the course of their employment. A famous case for this was outlined in Jones v Tower Boot Co8. An advertisement is an invitation to address, where the customer makes an bring home the bacon to buy (Partridge v Crittenden). There may only be revocation of an offer where response is made to an invitation to treat (Payne v Cave). In this case the customer accepted the terms of the offer and is entitled to the goods as stated (Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Stores).9. The shop is li able under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The fact that Hs sister did not make the contract is irrelevant as the case of Stennett v Hancock illustrated that a duty of care is owed to a person receiving presents from the original buyer (H). Under s. 2 (1) of the CPA 1987, the supplier (shop) is liable, since the customer cannot identify or contact the manufacturer.10. The shop owes K a duty of care as outlined in the neighbour principle of Donoghue v Stevenson. To prove negligence, there must have been a duty, that duty was breached and causation. Therefore, the shop is negligent in this case. Also, K may have a claim under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which places strict liability on anyone in the distribution food chain where a consumer suffers harm.11. This contract is frustrated. In the case of Taylor v Caldwell, it was determined that where a contract depends on a wedded thing (in this case 100 copper saucepans), and there is impossibility of proceeding of the contract, then the performance should be excused. Both parties are discharged from push performance in this case as the supplier cannot supply the send requested.12. Part payment of a debt can never be atonement for the whole payment as outlined in Pinnels good example (1602). This has since been confirmed in Foakes v Beer and Re Selectmove. Further, if the money is unable to be recovered at a later date, the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies where notwithstanding rights to recover the remaining sum will be extinguished (High Trees case)13. This is a case of pure economic loss. The negligent device driver does not owe a duty of care to the shop as there was no damage to the shops property (Spartan Steel v Martin). establish on policy guidelines, the loss of profit to the shop is non-recoverable to avoid the driver from a crushing liability.14. This is a negligent statement on the part of the accountants. In Hedley Byrne v Heller, the House of Lords held that a high horizontal sur face of proximity or closeness of relationship is required, and for liability to arise, a special relationship has to be shown between the maker of the statement and the person who relied on it. XYZ should be able to sue the accountants.BibliographyCharman, M, (2002), Contract Law, 2nd edn, London, Willan PublishingGiliker, P and Beckwith, S., (2004) tort, 2nd edn, London, Sweet and MaxwellMartin, J and Turner, C., (2001) Contract Law, London, Hodder StoughtonMartin, J and Turner, C., (2001) Tort Law, London, Hodder StoughtonRichards, P, (2002), Law of Contract, 5th edn, London, Longman Publishing