Contract Law Advice Style Answer

crush Law Advice air AnswerArron and Tracy adopt entered into terzetto distinguish commensurate types of distils. Firstly, thither is a edit appear bridge for trade of goods between Tracy and HAL1 for the purchase of the cocoa apparatus. Secondly, there is a guarantee for service among Arron and Matthew for the decoration of the hallway. Then, there is a contract for sale of comment between the Arron and the dog-seller for the purchase of dog. The contracts appeargond to be consumer contracts, since they satisfied the requirements realized low the unsportsman comparable Contract price transaction2. part 123 states that a person dealing beneath a consumer contract is when virtuoso society performed in the course of a business and non the differentwise party. Moreover, the goods in consideration must be of a type ordinarily supplied for private use.4 naval division 2(1) of the bargain of Goods sham5states that for a consumer contract to exist there must be a money consideration. In application, it is hold that Arron and Tracy are consumers, which are not acting in the course of the business, but we scum bagnot say the same for the other parties. In the cases of Stevenson6 and R B Customs7, the experimental condition in the course of a business8 is wisely ex nakeded, it is clear that the other parties who contracted with them are included.THE sumptuosity COFFEE MACHINE*The purchase of the luxury coffee falls chthonian the implied borders of s. 14 SGA9, which says that the goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality. chthonic S.14 (2A)10, the try out is that of a evenhandedlyish person would regard as satisfactory. Thus, when the coffee machine was bought no one willing judge it to burn transfer and to be unsafe (considering the criteria in s.14 (2B)11 of the act. Here, it includes safety as per s.14 (2B) (d)12. Indeed, the General crossing Safety Regulations 200513 has included electrical equipment as having a requirem ent to be safe, by being by rights insulted. However, this is not the case when the coffee machine becomes overly hot which is to a lower placestandably unsafe. It is clear though that s.1414 is in appaled since the inter instalment point supplied burnt hands by becoming too hot.Consequently, Tracy can hap or ask for a refund of the price (150) and return. Nevertheless, in collection to entitle to this, it must be established that Tracy has not accepted the carrefour. Otherwise, if it has taken place the remedy is modify only which will be on a lower floor s.11 (4).15 Furthermore, s.35 (4)16 says that acceptance occurred when a buyer retain the goods for a certain result of quantify with away intimating to the seller that she rejected it. The question of time had an extensive preaching about how long and what actually is a reasonable time. It was first established below the case of Bernstein17, at a lower place which there was a maximum of 3 weeks. However, it was l ater replaced by Clegg18 the actual law which provides a period of 7 months. In application, Tracy is visibly at heart the time limit, as she rejected the spree when she returns the coffee machine back to HAL.Furthermore, since Tracy pay the coffee machine with her trust post-horse, she whitethorn gestate additional rights down the stairs the Consumer creed knead 197419. In fact, she enters into a consumer address pact which is defined under(a) s.8 (1)20 as an reason between an individual and the characteror by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. In application, this is the case when Tracy paid the product with her credit card define as financial accommodation under s.921. It was a regulated consumer credit understanding under s.8 (3)22 as it was not an exempt agreement. It also constitutes a restrict use, according to the situation in the problem as per s.11 (b)23 and a political campaign account as per s.10 (1) (a)24.Consequently, as the product is purchase with a credit card, there is a D-C-S agreement under s.12 (b)25 debtor Tracy, creditor Barclaycard and the supplier HAL .In such(prenominal) a case, where there is a ill-timed product, which is the case Tracy has a interchangeable claim against the credit card company under s.7526. HAL and the credit card company are jointly and severally liable for the aforementioned sin of S.14 SGA27. Therefore, Tracy has a claim against both HAL and Barclaycard. Indeed, if the claim against the shop is unsuccessful, then she is authorise to use s.75 as a shield.Furthermore, even if Vicky is not a party to the contract she powerfulness have a claim against HAL since the privity of contract was get well by the narrow rule of Lord Atkin in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson.28 Despite the fact, that she could claim under negligence it will be beaver to sue under Consumer security measures crop29 since there is a strict financial obligation.Vicky might claim a civil financial obligation under air division I of CPA30 which covered damage or personal injury ca utilise by the faulty products, when her arm is burn. The coffee machine is defective as per s.3, since no one will for the most part expect the coffee machine to become too hot and unsafe. Therefore, she will be able to sue for indemnification.Moreover, there may be a potential criminal liability under array II of CPA which covered damage caused by unsafe product. definite goods need to satisfy the safety requirement under s.11 (1)31. Therefore, a ill to meet the safety regulations is a breach under s.1232, but unless the product tack on is unsafe which here is visibly the case.Additionally, HAL will try to depose on the exclusion article. In company to be effective, the clause necessitate to satisfy certain legal rules. When Tracy went to return the coffee machine, she was pointed a honour which states exchange items cannot be returned. Applying the case of Olley33, which est ablished that for a notice to be incorporated it need to be before or at the time of the contract. Since, Tracy could not remember having seen the notice before it is very likely that there clause was not incorporated. Even if the clause was valid, it will not beget a difference because s6 (1) UCTA states that liability in consumer contract for breach of s.1434 cannot be excluded.MATTHEW, THE DECORATOR*The contract between Arron and Matthew is governed by the add of Goods and Services 198235 since the gist of the contract is based on services. The SGSA36 consist of two parts break down 1 consists of the quality of goods supplied under the contract for the services and Part 2 is about the supply of servicesUnder Part 1, there is an implied term that goods supplied on the part of the act to be of satisfactory quality and run for purpose under s.4. This section mirror the provisions contain in spite of appearance s.14 (2A) and (2B) of SGA37. It should be noted that there is no pr ovision equivalent to s11 (4) and s.35. Therefore, generally when Arron buys the wallpaper guaranteed to last 10 years he will expect the product to be of satisfactory quality and to durable as per the other relevant circumstances under s.4 (2A)38 which mirror the provision of s.14 (2B) (e)39. But this was not the case when the wallpaper falls off the wall after half-dozen weeks.Unlike Part 1, which implied term concern the goods, Part 2 implies pursuance terms concerning the supply of services. Contrarily, to Part 1 it is possible to exclude liability, under s.11 UCTA for breach under the service part of the contract. A contract for supply of services is defined under s1240 as a contract under which a person (the supplier) agrees to carry out a service.Under Part 2 there is an implied term under s.1341 that the services provided by the supplier will be carried out deep down a reasonable wield and skill. It should be noted that s.13 implies generally accepted to be innominate te rm as in Hong Kong Fir42 by depriving the innocent party of the whole make of the contract. This is clearly the case here when the wallpaper fall off. Applying Nettleship v Weston43, there is no defence even if the person claims to have to their incompetent best. Under, Bolam44 if the skilled conforms within the standard required is of a reasonable competent member of the relevant trade, he will not be liable due to others different views. As established in Philips45 , the services must be carried out with such a care as within the capacity of his item of experience which he claimed to have .He must have a level of skill of such specialist which he holds to Arron as in Grieves.46Therefore, when Arron diligent Matthew, he expected the work to be done with a reasonable care and skill and not be fall off within six weeks.Clearly s.447 and s.1348 are in breached. Consequently, Arron will be able to ask for damages since rejection will be impossible. The claim for recovery of damages is for the poor service or poor quality of materials used in the contract term, it includes actual damages for the failure of wallpaper which has not be achieved it result by holding on the wall and consequential damages for the money which Arron will have to expense to repair the breach. In order to entitle to this, Arron must have taken reasonable steps to decrease his loss suffered, which require acceptance of offer from the defendant to rectify the matter, like under the case of Payzu.49It is clear that mitigation of loss had occurred when Arron suggested to Matthew that he should properly do the work again. Hence, Arron will be able to recover for the damages since he gives the opportunity to Matthew to redo the work properly.Additionally, Matthew tried to rely on the exclusion clause, when Arron tells him that he should properly redo the work. An exclusion clause is used by a party in order to restrict or limit liability in an event of a breach of contract or any other specif ied circumstances. But, for it to be effective three legal conditions need to be consider the common law, the UCTA and the unfair damage in Consumer Contract Regulations 199950.Under the common law, the clause must be incorporated and constructed. According to the scenario, the clause was incorporated by an express agreement since there is not enough information to state that a contract was signed between the parties. Therefore, it is very likely that the clause was incorporated. As for the formula of the clause, it must be established that in interpretation of the contract the clause cover the breach which has occurred. In application, the clause is constructed in a plain language but it does not cover the breach. Hereafter, the clause might not be hold as constructive by court.In addition, the statutory controls need to be considered. The legislation for exclusion clauses is governed by the provision under UCTA and UTCCR. The UCTA was created in order to protect the weaker party , for example the consumer. Under s.11(1), the reasonableness test need to be consider, under which the term must be fair and reasonable by including all circumstances which were or ought reasonable to have be known51. In the problem question, it is clear that the terms are not fair and reasonable since Matthew restricted the term of the contract for his own benefit and not for Arron (the consumer). He excluded all extra cost and loss arising out of the decorating services.The UTCCR will not be applicable due to lack of information about the presence of a contractual term or a standard form. Even if the exclusion clause is valid s.752states that liability for consumer contracts for breach of s4 and s13 cannot be excluded. However, this liability can be excluded if satisfies the requirement of the reasonableness which is visibly not the case here.Arron might have a criminal liability against the producer for the commercial sends of the wallpaper through television advertising. The l iability will be under Schedule 1 of the Consumer protective cover from unsporting concern Regulations 200853which replaced some consumer protection legislation like CPA Part 3 or even the TDA54. He can claim liability for jerry-built actions under Regulation 5. It occurs when a misleading information lead the sightly consumer to make a decisive reason to enter the contract. In application, it is clear that it is the 10 years old guarantee, which encourages Arron to buy this specific paper. This commercial practice clearly distinguished the product from the competitor (para.3 (a) of reg.5), was obviously a chief(prenominal) characteristic of the product (para.4 (b) of reg.5) which makes him make a decisive decision in buying this product rather than the others.PUPPIES*The buying of pedigree dog is governed by the SGA. However, the effect of the bid must first be drawn, by stating whether it is a puff, a representation, a term or a sale by comment. The difference between thes e statements will be established. A puff is a mere boast or unsubstantiated claims which are used by advertisers for their products and services .An example is the case of Carlill55. Representations or contractual term are statements made in course of negotiation for a contract. While, a term of contract define as outcome to pre-contractual negotiation between parties can be distinct in two types implied and express.It could also be a sale by description under s.13 which implied term is that the goods must act to the words used for the description of the goods. In application, it is clear that is a sale by description where the adverts states that the dogs are pedigree dogs with friendly temperature. S.13 is breached as the description is inaccurate and that the dogs are crossbreeds, aggressive and snappy. There is a strict liability under s.13 and the remedy, will allow Arron to reject the good and receive damages.Next, Arron has paid the pedigree dog with his credit card he may h ave a claim under CCA. Under the CCA, a D-C-S agreement is established, under s12 (b) consisting of the debtor Arron, the creditor the credit card company (Barclaycard) and the supplier (the dog-seller). It may be that has a claim under s.75 where the creditor is jointly and severally liable with the supplier for the supplier misrepresentation and for breach of s.13 SGA. If, the claim is not successful under SGA against the supplier, Arron will be to use s.75 as a shield.Criminal liability is regulated by the regulation 556 for the false information which deceived the consumers. The false statement of the advert may lead to a criminal offence under reg.5 CPUTR which prohibits false information to be applied on goods. S.2 (2) (a), states that goods includes the descriptions and details of animals as per there sex, breed or cross 57.Under s.3 (1)58 explains the term of false to a material degree. In application, it is clear that the advert the newspaper is a material degree and that t here is a breached of Reg 5.2515 Word Count*(Excluding titles)Bibliography primal SourcesCasesBolam v Friern infirmary Management 1957 1 WLR 582Bernstein v Pamson Motors 1987 RTR 384Carlill v The Carbolic crapper Ball Co Ltd 1893 1 QB 256Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562Grieves Co Baynham 1975 1 WLR 109Hong Kong Fir tape transport Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962 EWCA Civ 7Nettleship v Weston 1971 2 QB 691Olley v Marlborough judiciary Ltd 1949 1 AII ER 127Payzu Ltd. V Saunders 1919 2 KB 581Philips v William Whitely Ltd 1938 AII ER 566RB Customs Brokers Ltd v United Dominions confidence Ltd 1988 1 WLR 321Stevenson v Rogers 1999 1 All ER 613Statutes and statutory instruments sight Description routine 1968Consumer attribute moment 1974Unfair Contract scathe doing 1977 bargain of Goods knead 1979Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982Consumer safeguard Act 1987Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008Second ary SourcesBooksNicholas Ryder, Margaret Griffiths, Lachmi Singh, Commercial Law (Principles and Policy), (First make 2012,Cambrige)Michael Furmston and Jason Chuah, Commercial Law,(2th edn, Pearson 2013)Chris Turner, UNLOCKING film LAW,(First published 2004,Hodder Stoughton)Chapters in BooksMichael Furmston and Jason Chuah, Chapter 4 trade of Goods 4.8 Defective goods, Commercial Law,(2th edn, Pearson 2013) pg. 192-201Chris Turner, Chapter 6 The Obligations under a Contract Term 6.1.2 Types of representation and their consequences, UNLOCKING CONTRACT LAW,(First published 2004,Hodder Stoughton) pg. 111-116Websites and BlogsWhich? Consumer Right Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (2014) http//www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/supply-of-goods-and-services-act-1982accessed on 19 March 2014Financial Ombudsman Service , oombudsman news issue 31 credit cards equal liability under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (sep 2003) http//www.financial-ombudsman.org. uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/creditcards-31.htm accessed on 25 March 2014FindLaw UK, Your rights under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act http//www.findlaw.co.uk/law/consumer/consumer_credit/500520.html accessed on 02 April 2014BBC one Watchdog, Supply of Services(2014) http//www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mg74/features/consumer-law-supply-of-services accessed on 06 April 2014Out-Law.com, Product liability under the Consumer Protection Act (last update 2011) http//www.out-law.com/en/topics/commercial/supply-of-goods-and-services/product-liability-under-the-consumer-protection-act/ accessed on 09 April 20141 Home Appliances Ltd2 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 UCTA3 Unfair Contract Terms Act 19774 subsection.12(1)(c) Unfair Contract Terms Act 19775 Sale of Goods Act 1979SGA6 Stevenson v Rogers 1999 1 All ER 6137 RB Customs Brokers Ltd v United Dominions invest Ltd 1988 1 WLR 3218 Section 12 Unfair Contract Terms Act 19779 Section 14 Sale of Goods Act 197910 Section 14 (2A) Sal e of Goods Act 197911 Section 14 (2 B) Sale of Goods Act 197912 Section 14 (2B) (d) Sale of Goods13 General Product Safety Regulations 2005GPSR14 Section 14 Sale of Goods Act 197915 Section 11 (4) Sale of Goods Act 197916 Section 35 (4) Sale of Goods Act 197917 Bernstein v Pamson Motors 1987 RTR 38418 Clegg v Anderson 2003 EWCA Civ 100219 Consumer Credit Act 1974CCA20 Section 8 (1) Consumer Credit Act 197421 Section 9 Consumer Credit Act 197422 Section 8 (3) Consumer Credit Act 197423 Section 11 (b) Consumer Credit Act 197424 Section 10 (1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 197425 Section 12 (b) Consumer Credit Act 197426 Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 197427 Section 14 Sale of Goods Act 197928 Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 56229 Consumer Protection Act 1987CPA30 Consumer Protection Act 198731 Section 11 (1) Consumer Protection Act 198732 Section 12 Consumer Protection Act 198733 Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 ALL ER 12734 Section 14 Sale of Goods Act 197935 Supply of goods and Services Act 1982 SGSA36 Supply of Goods and Services Act 198237 Sale of Goods Act 197938 Section 4 (2A) Supply of Goods and Services Act 198239 Section 14(2B)(e) Sale of Goods Act 197940 Section 12 Supply of Goods and Services Act 198241 Section 13 Supply of Goods and Services Act 198242 Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd 1962 EWCA Civ 743 Nettleship v Weston 1962 2 QB 69144 Bolam Fried Hospital Management 1957 1 WLR 58245 Philips v William Whitely Ltd 1938 1 ALL ER 56646 Grieves Co v Baynham 1975 QB 64447 Section 4 Supply of Goods and Services Act 198248 Section 13 Supply of Goods and Services Act 198249 Payzu Ltd v Saunders 1919 2 KB 58150 Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 UTCCR51 S.11(1) of Unfair Contract Terms Act 197752 Section 7 Unfair Contract Terms Act 197753 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 CPUTR54 TDATrade Description Act 1968-largely repealed by CPUTR55 Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Co Ltd 1893 1 QB 25656 Regu lation 5 of Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 200857 Section 2(2)(a) of the Trade description Act 196858 Section 3(1) of the Trade description Act 1968