Case study of Ben is provided in the brief and case is related to sales of goods contract. Same scenario has been extended for further report and it also include legal rules regarding consumer credit.
1. Evaluation of legal rules regarding case and chances of Ben to succeed if case reaches court.
2. Explanation of various rules regarding consumer credit and agency.
3. To present regulations regarding monopolies or anti-competitive practices in UK.
4. To identify different provision relating to intellectual property rights by considering case laws and legislations.
Business law has been developed in order to bring regulatory as well as ethical framework for carrying commercial transaction. It is considered as a vital component of spectrum which is established by British parliament for regulation of commercial organisations. Among individual and business. The present report will focus on providing effective knowledge and understanding of legal obligations as well as application of business law which includes provision of various acts for example – Sales of Good Act, Monopoly Act etc. The assignment will also discuss rights of intellectual property which is related to all organisational practices or dealings. The legal laws on the consumer credit agreement and agency will be also discussed in the following report. This report is in context to a case acting as an aid in evaluating of the statutory provision on the seller's and buyer's remedies. It will imply important principles which will affect lawful organisation within the business and the targeted market. Furthermore, this report will also determine key provisions related to business names, trademarks etc.
1.1 Advice to Ben with legal rules related to sale of good s and supply services.
The given case study determines that Ben is planning to buy a new car which is referred by the car dealer's magazine. The advertisement in magazine presented description of a particular car which Ben chosen, it was a second hand or used car. At the time when Ben visited dealer's showroom he said that car is not present in the present showroom. In addition to this he also said that Ben to pay GBP 150 in order as amount in form of consideration is he want to see the car. Ben made the payment and went for a test drive, he liked the car and bought the car immediately. After delivery Ben went on a road trip with his family and observed that engine of the car is heating up and it needs regular cooling as well as restart. He took the car to the dealer where he came to know that the car was owned by two owners earlier and both the owners used the car as Taxi. Car dealer made rejection on sales return on the basis of exclusion clause in mentioned in term and conditions related to sales.
The above case analysis determines that both seller and buyers have legal obligations for the practice with regards to sales. The implied term in Section 12-15 of Sales of good act 1979 included the following -
- Section 12 – In order to transfer the rights of ownership the seller require to have possession of the product.
- Section 13 – The description or information related to product and actual quality must be replicable. In addition to this product must be of standard quality.
- Section 14 –The product quality must be acceptable by the purchaser or buyer and it should not be damaged or faulty.
- Section 15 – The quality of product was not actually portrayed in the test drive as the driving area was bot similar to actual situation or condition.
According to the stated case it has been determined that
1.2 Advising Ben over statutory arrangements on exchange of property and ownership
Business law separated the great into specific and additionally unspecified items. The case shows that Ben has given detail and clear depiction of the merchandise inside the ad. In this manner it was specific great as per the law. As opposed to this unspecified product are one that are not especially depicted by the dealer. With the present case statutory commitments obligated as per Transfer of Property Act 1882 is contained:
Items for deals should be satisfactory legally.
The product title must be moved just on the off chance that the dealer have the responsibility for product.
The product's legitimate rights should be exchanged to the purchaser with the product.
The business which is directed needs shared enthusiasm for the gatherings that are locked in inside the exchange.
The present case mirrors that all the statutory commitments by the gatherings can be evaluated and connected in compelling way. Then again prohibition proviso was not as per statutory commitments related with Transfer of Property Act 1882.
Also Read this Sample:- Case Study - Marks & Spencer
1.3 Evaluating the statutory arrangement on purchaser's and dealer's cures inside offer of merchandise contract
The purchaser and dealer related with the product have fluctuated lawful rights and additionally commitments inside the offering exchanges. The non execution of any of the gatherings have displayed the results.
Solutions for purchasers in offers of merchandise are expressed as beneath:
Purchaser has the qualification to assert against the repair and harms that are caused when leading and exchange of items that are flawed. In the present case broken product was auto in this manner Ben is entitled at asserting for the fuel, repair and charges of taxicab.
The product execution is basic and in circumstance such isn't, acquired product must be traded or for specific product it should be discounted. In the present situation the product was viewed as flawed and also execution was not picked up. As specific product it must not be supplanted. In this manner the discount of product needs to performed.
The caused harms which are extra in circumstance of product exchange and in addition ownership should be asserted through the purchaser. In the present situation Ben has the risk for guaranteeing against the cargo, repair and a few additional accuses paid in connection of auto.
Solutions for merchant in offers of good are as under:
A dealer has the qualification towards guaranteeing the full/concurred cost of product in type of thought. In the present case the merchant of auto has risk to guarantee £10,000 for auto that is second hand.
The product can be relinquished by the dealer in circumstance contract terms are not acquired. In the current circumstance dealer is in blame and in addition contracts terms were not being satisfied by the purchaser. Accordingly, risk of Ben does not emerge towards making installment for anything.
Addition of the avoidance condition should be done inside contract on the off chance that it take after the lawful commitments and accentuate on minimization of the real risk. Assist it must be confined in legitimate way and embedded inside the agreement. Inside the present case focal point of rejection statement was on decrease of immaterial obligation related with contract. In this manner prohibition statement was not connected for the agreement.
1.5 Analyzing and prompting on product risk lawful standards and statutory arrangement for broken products
Customer Protection Act, 1987 makes appraisal of the obligation related with product and in addition statutory arrangements for the products that are flawed. It lay accentuation on supporting the gatherings harmed in the agreement through the recommendation of cures keeping in mind the end goal to manage same. In the present case it is expressed in way as under:
The product purchaser needs to have proved that the product buy by them was broken and does not have proper condition for use. For the situation gave Ben can demonstrate such through exposure of the state of motor and issues of begin inside the auto.
The purchaser needs to demonstrate that harms are experienced by them in light of wrongdoing with respect to offended party. In the present case product quality does not coordinate the portrayal of the product. Assist the data related with the product was not uncovered viably via auto's dealer.
The purchaser needs to ensure that deformities exhibited in the product exists while making buy and were not caused by him/her. In the expressed case the imperfection in auto exists while influencing buy however incapability in the test to drive did not unveil the same.
In this way general investigation introduces that the purchaser in show body of evidence has the risk against the harms and additionally were caused while making buy as the product's data as far as imperfections and execution was not being unveiled with viability via auto merchant to Ben.