Unit 7 Business law Assignment Solution
For current and new organisations, business law gives principles for executing operational tasks in order to ensure justice. These clauses safeguard the weaker party and prohibit unfair business practises. The current unit 7 business law assignment answer focuses on the application of business law to make suitable recommendations for certain case scenarios. To support recommendations in specific circumstances, it will include descriptions of the Sales of Goods Act, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Law of Property Act, 1925, Consumer Protection Act 1987, and anti-competitive Act. Previous case law will be used to buttress the description. In addition, the Intellectual Property Valid Act will be used to define rights and infringement.
The following sections explain implied phrases in the Sales of Goods Act 1979:
Section 12-Title: According to Nystén-Haarala, Lee, and Lehto (2010), the seller of the product shall have the necessary right or ownership for the sale. An individual should be qualified to give another person a suitable title. Miss Bianca is the owner of the showroom in this situation, hence she has the right to transfer the items to Adam.
Section 13-Description: The goods offered by the seller to the customer shall correspond to the description given at the time of the agreement’s creation. Furthermore, it should be devoid of flaws. In this situation, Adam’s TV purchase should correspond to Miss Bianca’s description at the time of the agreement’s establishment.
Section 14-quality: The Sale and Supply of Goods Act of 1994 added this section. According to this provision, the vendor must offer the consumer with high-quality items (Akintoye, Renukappa, and Lal, 2012). This clause, however, only applies to sellers who are operating in the course of their company. Miss Bianca’s TV should contain the following qualitative elements in order to pass this test:
Appearance and finish are appropriate.
It should be suitable for all of the reasons for which products or services are frequently provided.
Minor defects and imperfections are absent.
Safety is paramount (Sale of Goods Act 1979.2014).
Exceptions: Adam will not be given a cure in the following scenario.
If Adam determines that he does not desire the item,
Misuse or accidental harm
Wear and tear is normal.
Section 15: Sample sales: The goods offered in the transaction should match the representative sample displayed at the time of agreement creation (Rush, and Ottley, 2006). It should be completely free of flaws. The TV should match the showroom example.
1.2 The Law of Property Act, 1925, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 regulate the transfer of property in the United Kingdom. Transfer of property, according to these acts, is defined as an activity in which a live person transfers their property or possession to another living person in the present or future (Middlemiss, 2012). Corporate bodies and associations are included in the definition of a living person under this Act’s provisions. The following are the provisions for property transfer:
According to the decision of Healey v Howlett& Sons, it was established that only the items that have been ascertained shall transfer for ownership of the goods under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
As a result, section 18 of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 governs the transfer of property for the purpose of taking possession of goods after a contract has been signed. If the goods must be measured or weighed in order to be determined, the same must be done for the products to be transferred. If the products are not rejected within a reasonable amount of time, they are deemed transferred. If the commodities are not ascertained, the goods will be seized and appropriated unconditionally. Only if the seller possesses title to the items can the transfer take place. If the transaction is made by someone who does not own the property, it will be ruled void. The risk connected with the products is also passed to the buyer when ownership and title are transferred. If the buyer has allowed the transfer of possession to someone else, the items will be transferred in the beneficiary’s name.
In this case, it’s likely that Adam bought the TV for both personal and business reasons, thus the title and custody of the products will be in his name. As a result, Adam will be considered the genuine owner of the television.
1.3 The seller’s remedies (Miss Bianca)
Special performance- The seller has the right to demand specific performance from the buyer as outlined in the agreement.
Sellers have the right to demand payment of the agreed price for goods transferred through sale.
They are not authorised to give damages for non-satisfactory performance if there is an exclusion provision in the agreement of sale or supply of goods, but such clauses should be reasonable and appropriate to law and public policy.
The buyer’s remedies (Adam)
Damages claim- The buyer may file a claim for damages incurred as a result of the goods delivered by the buyer.
Suit for special performance- They have the right to seek particular performance from the seller as outlined in the agreement.
They can also demand damages for associated harm or loss in addition to the principal losses. For instance, the amount of prospective profit or bodily harm, and so forth (Schaffer, Agusti, and Dhooge, 2014).
In this scenario, Adam is entitled to the above-mentioned privilege because his television has stopped operating after three days. He has the option of requesting a replacement or a refund. The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 established product liability provisions. According to the Act, a claimant must meet the following criteria in order to obtain damages:
The seller’s product is faulty.
An injury caused as a result of a flaw.
Due to the seller’s negligence, an injury occurred.
It may be deduced from the current project report that the sales agreement should meet all implicit requirements for a fair transfer of possession. If the buyer or seller fails to comply with these conditions, the aggrieved party has the right to seek redress. Anti-competitive legislation is being drafted by the UK parliament to combat unfair activities through monopoly. To preserve new innovation rights, a law of intellectual property was enacted to prevent infringement and unethical usage.
UK, EU & US Copyright Law. 2014. [Online]. Available through: <http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/graduate/uk-eu-and-us-copyright-law/print>. [Accessed on 3rd December 2014].
Schwenzer, I. 2005. Danger of Domestic Preconceived Views with Respect to the Uniform Interpretation of the CISG: The Question of Avoidance in the Case of Non-Conforming Goods and Documents, The. Victoria U. Wellington L. Rev.36.pp 795.
Schaffer, R., Agusti, F., and Dhooge, L. 2014. International business law and its environment. Cengage Learning.
Sale of Goods Act 1979. 2014. [Online]. Available through: <http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54>. [Accessed on 3rd December 2014].
Rush, J. and Ottley, M., 2006. Business Law. Cengage.
Protecting a company’s name. 2014. [Online]. Available through: <http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/topics/protecting_a_company_name.shtml>. [Accessed on 3rd December 2014].
Nystén-Haarala, S., Lee, N., and Lehto, J., 2010.Flexibility in contract terms and contracting processes. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 3(3). pp.462 – 478
Middlemiss, S., 2012. The legal impact on employers where there is a sham element in contracts with their workers. International Journal of Law and Management. 54(3). pp.209–221.
Kidner, and Richard. 2007. Resiling from the Anns principle: the variable nature of proximity in negligence. Legal Studies. Blackwell Publishing 7(3).
Fleming, M. H. 2005. UK law enforcement agency use and management of suspicious activity reports: towards determining the value of the regime. Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science. London: UCL.
Cornish, W., Llewelyn, G. I. D., and Aplin, T. 2013. Intellectual property: patents, copyright, trade marksAnd allied rights.
Bridge, M. 2007. Law for International Sale of Goods, A. Hong Kong LJ. 37. 17.
Boldrin, M., and Levine, D. 2002. The case against intellectual property.American Economic Review, pp. 209-212.
Akintoye, A., Renukappa, S. and Lal, H., 2012. The abolition of the “contracts in writing” rule in the 2009 Construction Act: Potential implications for UK adjudication. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment. 4(2). pp.140–156.
Abuse of a dominant position. 2014. [Online]. Available through: <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284422/oft402.pdf>. [Accessed on 3rd December 2014].