商务契约关系(Business Contractual Relationships 5.2

Part 1Question 1:What is the difference between a contract of service and a contract for service? Contract of service•An employee-employer contract is a contract of service•is the term used when a person is considered an 'employee' of an organisation •Permanent employees have a contract of service with their employer. By definition, if a worker has a contract of service with an organisation, they are an employeeContract for services• A contractor-client contract is a contract for services•Relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.A contract for services is a strictly business to business contract between two firms on a buyer and supplier basis. The client, or agency, is a buyer and the contractor’s limited company or Umbrella Company is the supplier. There is no question of any employment relationshipThe key rights and responsibilities of employee status under a contract of service.The worker is expected to work at a specific place during specific hours on specific days (even flexi-time has core hours). However, contract for service has not fixed time to do work.The worker must present themselves for work and cannot send someone else as a substitute. However, contract for service can taken place with other persons.Employees have statutory rights to holiday pay, sick pay, maternity and paternity rights and redundancy payments. However, contract for service has not holiday pay,sick pay, and so on.Employees have statutory rights regarding how they can be asked to leave their employment. On the contrary, contract for service has not these statutory rights.Employees enjoy a range of additional benefits, which can vary according to the employer, but might include company cars, private health insurance, staff canteens, health clubs and gyms and so on. On the contrary, it is unlucky that contract for service only has fixed wage.Employees are not personally liable for any errors they make when completing work for their employer, nor are they expected to make good in their own time. However, contract for service need to bear all of the responsibility when occur a accident at the work.There are three ways to test a person’s status•The integration test (综合测试）•The economic reality test （经济现实测试）•The control test （控制标准测试）•The totality of the working relationship is looked at in order to determine status so that individual knows whether they are or to what extent they are protected. As contract of services have more rights than contract for service. Cameron is belong to contract for service. Although, he wear suit code，and he also work in the other place at the same time. What’s more, at the busy, he could place to drive by his sister.Question 2:With reference to question 1 above, what kind of contract does Cameron have with tartan plc? Give reasons for your answer.According to Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) reference has a relationship with the case one.The result of the case law is The Minister decided that Mr Latimer was employed under a contract of service.In his judgment, MacKenna J considered what is meant by a contract of service. He said “A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled.(i)The servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will Provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master. (ii) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficie nt degree to make that other master. (iii) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service.In my view, Cameron is a contract for service. Owing to he is pertly free to refuse offers of work from the company and there is nothing in his arrangement with Tartan Transport PLC which prevents him from working for any other company. And sometimes make his sister on behalf of to work. Moreover, Cameron rights and interests enjoyed are few。

Business contractual relationship:Assessment 1:Case one:“A contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”A contract of sale of goods’ therefore covers both a ‘sale’ and an ‘agreement to sell’. Where the seller can transfer the goods immediately, and is willing and able to do so, then there is a ‘sale’. However, where there is some sort of condition that must be fulfilled or some act has to be carried out before the sale can take place, and then there is merely an ‘agreement to sell’.The legal effect of a ‘sale’ is that the purchaser obtains a real right over the goods as property in the goods has passed to the purchaser. However, in an ‘agreement to sell’the purchaser only holds personal right against the seller in respect of the contract.Mary can use SOGA1979 Term to protect herself right and power.Implied Terms of SOGA 1979 include that section12- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of Title, section13-Sale by Description, section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’, and section15- Sale by Sample.Section 12 -- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of TitleAt the first, the seller must have ‘title’ to the goods; the right to sell the goods. The seller must either own the goods or should have the appropriate authority from the owner to sell the goods.No third party should have any claim on the goods which would prevent the buyer from obtaining a good title and quite possession of the goods. If there is any charge or encumbrance over the goods by the third party, then all known charges or encumbrance would required to be disclosed prior to the sale.Section13-Sale by DescriptionOn the other hand, this section implies the term that the goods are to ply with their description. It is clear that if the buyer dose not sees the goods prior to purchase and buy s those relying on a description, then this section would apply.However, SOGA 1979 also makes clears that a sale by description can also apply to goods exposed for sale and selected by the customer.Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’,Satisfactory QualityIn English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensure that goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required –the caveat emptor rule.In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith.Section 14 only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business so it only covers the situation where the seller is in business. It does not cover private sales although the status of the buyer is irrelevant. Section 14 applies to business buyers as well as to private buyers.The quality of goods includes their state and conditions and this would therefore means that if goods are advertised as in a sale , or seconds etc, this could have some effect on quality to be expected. There are factors that are listed in section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases :( 1)Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kinds in question are monly supplied(2)Appearance and finish (3)Freedom form minor defect (4) Safety (5) Durability.Reasonable Fitness for PurposeUnder section 14 of SOGA 1979, there is an implied term that the goods are reasonable fit for the purpose, whether or not that is purpose for which such goods are monly supplied.In the case, Mary’s tumble dryer has quality problems and line installation defects caused by fire. This does not conform to the provisions of product safety. Because this product’ defects cause serious consequences. Of course, the hairdryer to use only two months on the problems that the hairdryer is not durability. Hence，Mary could use Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’ because that Mary’s situation conforms to the content that the law stipulate.Section15- Sale by SampleIn this section there are two implied terms:That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality: and that the goods will be free from any defect, marking them unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.Case two:Charlie can't use the SOGA1979 bill rights, because Charlie did not directly buy tumble dryer.Charlie can use the Law of Delict to protect his own power，the Law of Delict, like the law of contract , is a part of the law of obligations. A delict has been defined as: “a civil wrong mitted by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liab ility to make reparation for any consequential loss or injury may arise”General principles of Delictual liabilityAs noted above there must be three elements present:A loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation.Caused by a legal wrong (wrong conduct)Caused by culpa(fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.Charlie lung inhalation of smoke to his shock in this belongs to the serious loss. According to the case, Charlie is not negligence resulting in the fire is mainly because short circuit caused the fire.Charlie can also use the Consumer Protection Act 1987to protect his rights and interests.It contains importance extension of the privity of contract rights for consumers if goods are unsafe, so that rights also exist directly against producers and those who hold themselves out as producers.The consumer protection act 1987 deal with three main aspects of consumer protection: product liability, customer safety and misleading pricing.Product liabilityPart one of the customer protection act 1987 transport the product liability directive into the UK law.part 1 of the establishes is a principle of strict liability relating to defective products which cause damages to other property and injure to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contract with the product.Strict liability means that the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The product liability section made producers liable for any damage done by defective products. The Act goes even further in ensuring that customers are protected from damage or injure caused by faulty goods.In the case, Charlie’s safety and healthy was threaten by the gas that he absorb in the fire. This event happened due to product defect. Therefore, this event belongs to the product liability act.Consumer safetyPart 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.It deal with consumer safety and allows the government to regulate the design, ponents and construction of goods which could, if defective cause injury. Charlie also fits the bill because it is due to product defects cause harm. what’s more, the tumble dryer damage his health in this event and there is a bad effect on his life. Therefore, this event is suiting to Part 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.Misleading pricingPart 3 of the Act makes it illegal to mislead consumes about the price of any good, service or facility. The provisions of this part are quite prehensive and cover such services as banking, gas and electricity supplies, telephone service, parking acmodation and all goodsCase 3:The boss’s word is not obe yed no clause exempting.The first does not conform to the provisions; this statement is not a fair statement. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ——regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. One of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability.Section17 UCTA1977covers attempts to exclude contractual liability in consumer and standard form contract.If a document is singed at the time of making the contract, its contents bee terms of that contract, regardless of whether they have been read or understood.If separate written terms are presented at the time a contract is made, for example by handing over ticket, those terms only bee part of the contract if it can be said that the recipient had reasonable notice of them. However an exemption clause is only incorporated into the contract if notice is given before or at the time of contracting.Case 4：Debtor –creditor –supplier agreement. Where the creditor is also the supplier of the goods. In these agreement where goods or services cost more than$100or less than $30000 the debtor can hold the creditor jointly and severally liable with supplier when he claims misrepresentation or breach of contract against the supplier –known as ‘ connected leader liability’.Examples where there would be a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement include purchases of goods from retailers where there is a pre-existing financing arrangement; hire-purchase arrangements where the finance is provided by a finance pany; and credit card transactions.Under section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable in respect of any breach of contract. The consumer would therefore choose to claim against either the creditor or the supplier.The creditor and supplier may be the same person, and has links to a creditor or vendor who will provide loans to the vendor's customers, this is a very mon type of agreement generally suppliers belong to the intermediary in the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, however section75 of the Act allows debit charges lenders and suppliers, If a breach of contract, plus 85 pages under section 75 Credit belongs to consumer creditor with supplier belongs to the same party this clause can Act 1974 Dave supplier creditor claims.。

商务契约关系O u t c o m e1 -CAL-FENGHAI-(2020YEAR-YICAI)_JINGBIANCASE 1:Q1: Is Maggie entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning for selling her a defective tumble dryer and will it matter that she purchased the goods in a sale1.Yes, Maggie is entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning forselling her a defective tumble dryer in terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).2.Thunderbolt & Lightning will be in breach of Section 14 of the 1979 Act. The storehas broken one of the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (Sections 12-15) which are always assumed to form part of every contract of sale.3.Section 14 also states that goods will be of satisfactory quality if they meet thestandard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. Section 14 lists five examples of quality that buyers can use to help them decide whether the goods that they have purchased fall below the expected standard of quality:fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question arecommonly suppliedappearance and finishfreedom from minor defectssafetydurabilityThe tumble dryer is not fit for its purpose, it is unsafe and it is not durable. The protection which Section 14 gives to buyers is only applicable in situations where the seller is selling the goods in the course of business. Maggie, of course, has purchased the goods from a business seller.4.Will it make a difference that Maggie purchased the goods in a sale No. The onlyexceptions will be when detects were specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention by the seller. Furthermore, if the buyer examined the goods before purchasing them and noticed any obvious defects, she/he will not have the protection of Section l4.5.More generally, the buyer’s claim that goods were not of satisfactory quality willbe defeated if the goods have been subject to wear and tear, the buyer hasmisused the goods or the buyer now has simply taken a dislike to the goods.6.Section 48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 now states that there will be astrong presumption operating against the seller that if the goods develop defects within six months from the date of delivery to the buyer. Then they will probably have failed to meet the requirement of satisfactory quality.7.Candidates must be able to cite at least one of the following:Jackson v Rotax Motor and Cycle Co [1910]Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936]Mash and Murrell v Joseph I Emmanuel [196/], [1962]Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965]BS Brown & Son Ltd v Craiks Ltd[1970]Millars of Falkirk v Turpie [1976]Q2: What legal action, if any, can Charlie pursue as a result of the injuries that he has suffered1.Charlie will not be entitled to bring an action under Section 14 of the Sale ofGoods Act l979, because he does not have a contractual relationship withThunderbolt & Lightning.2.Charlie is in a much stronger legal position thanks to Part I of the ConsumerProtection Act l987 which allows him to pursue a civil claim for damages against the manufacturer of the tumble dryer in respect of his injuries. Part l of theConsumer Protection Act establishes a regime of strict liability in relation todefective products which cause damage to other property and/or injuries topeople who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contact with the product. Strict liability automatically presumes that the defect in the product must be the fault of the producer of the goods. The manufacturer must come up with a credible explanation to show why she/he is not to blame for the injuries or loss that the pursuer (Charlie) has suffered.3.The 1987 Act applies to dangerous products which are capable of causingdamage to the pursuer’s property or cap able of causing the pursuer to suffer some sort of personal injury. The fact that the product is not working properly will not give a pursuer the right to raise an action against the defender. Many products are defective without being dangerous in any way.Q3: Do you think that Thunderbolt & Lightning will be able to escape liability to Maggie by claiming that the manufacturer was responsible for the defects in the goods1.No. Thunderbolt & Lightning’s attempt to escape liability to Maggie by claimingthat the manufacturer was responsible for the defects in the goods will fall foul of the concept of strict liability in the Sale of Goods Act 1979.2.The buyer’s contract is with the seller and it is irrelevant to the buyer whetherthe defect has been caused by a manufacturing fault or not. The seller’s liability is said to be strict in the sense that the buyer does not have to prove fault orblame on the seller’s part.3. A seller can in turn sue the manufacturer for supplying it with defective goods ifthe buyer has successfully sued him/her for defects in the goods. The buyer may have suffered a personal injury or his/her property may have been damaged as a result of using the defective goods. The seller will have to compensate the buyer for any injuries suffered or any damage caused as a result of using the goods. So, compensation could be awarded for the destruction caused to Maggie’s kitchen and clothing in the appliance at the time of fire.4.Manufacturing guarantees may also give an indication as to the length of timethat a buyer can expect the goods to meet the appropriate standard of quality.This might be a strong indication of a major defect. Section 14 of the Sale ofGoods Act l979 states that manufacturing guarantees are directly enforceable against the manufacturer and any person (Thunderbolt & Lightning) who uses a guarantee to sell or market the goods to a consumer.Q4: Do you think that Thunderbolt & Lightning will be able to rely on the above exclusion clause to escape any potential liability to Maggie1.Thunderbolt & Lightning’s attempt to rely on the exclusion clause to escape anypotential liability to Maggie will fail miserably.2.Such an exclusion clause is null and void because the store is attempting toexclude its liability for personal injuries which it simply cannot do.3.Any attempt by the store to exclude or limit its liability in relation to Section 14of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will be automatically void in terms of Section 20 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.4.Furthermore, there is a general provision in Section 16 of the Unfair ContractTerms Act 1977 which renders null and void any attempt by an individual toexclude his/her liability for death or personal injuries.5.Maggie is a consumer buying goods for her own private purposes and thestrongest possible protection is extended to consumers in terms of 1977 Act. 6.Additionally, the store’s exclusion clause could be challenged under the UnfairTerms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Regulations apply a test of fairness before exclusion or limitation clause can be regarded as void andunenforceable. With regard to the issue of excluding or limiting liability for death or personal injury, the Regulations state that such terms may be unfair whereas the Act makes these automatically void.Q5: Presuming that Maggie’s legal action is successful, what remedies will she be entitled to claim against Thunderbolt & Lightning1.If Maggie’s legal action is successful, she will be entitled to claim the remedies ofrescission . cancellation of the contract of sale for material breach (supplying goods of unsatisfactory quality) and damages as per Section 15B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.2.There are various remedies:rescissionreduction in the price of the goodreplacement of the goodsrepair the goodsCase 2Q1: What Act of Parliament covers consumer credit and how would you define a consumer credit agreement1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) regulates the consumer creditindustry.2.Section 8 of the l974 Act lays down a definition of a regulated consumer creditagreement. Such an agreement is a personal credit agreement by which thecreditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000. A corporatebody (company, a limited partnership or a limited liability partnership) cannot bea party to a consumer credit agreement.Q2: By reference to Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act l974, describe the legal relationship between Marvellous Motors PLC and Alba Bank.1.Marvellous Motors PLC has a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement with the AlbaBank. Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements where the creditor and the supplier of goods may be the same person or where the supplier has links to a creditor who will provide credit to the supplier’s customers (the debtors). The supplier (Marvellous Motors PLC) in a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is the agent of the finance house or the bank. This kind of arrangement benefits all three parties.The debtor is given access to a source of credit; the supplier can be confident of selling more goods because she/he is in a position to offer credit to potentialcustomers and the finance house/bank gets someone else (the supplier) to drum up custom on its behalf Debtor-creditor·-supplier agreements.2.Section 75 of the Act allows a debtor to sue either the creditor or the supplier inthe above arrangement for a breach of contract committed by the supplier(Marvellous Motors PLC). Section 75 makes the creditor and supplier jointly and severally liable to the debtor for any misrepresentations or breaches of contract committed by the supplier.Q3: What is the difference between a credit sale and a hire purchase agreement 1.In credit sales, the debtor will become the owner of the goods from the outset ofthe agreement. All the debtor has to do is make regular repayments of the debt owed to the creditor over the agreed credit period.2.In hire purchase sales, the debtor will not become the owner of goods until hehas paid the creditor all the instalments owed under the agreement. The debtor will be given an option to purchase the goods. Hire purchase can never involve the purchase of land.Q4: in what circumstances do debtors have the right to cancel a consumer credit agreement1.Section 67 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does allow a credit agreement to becancelled in certain situations. Credit agreements can only be cancelled if two conditions are met:if you, the debtor, entered into face to face discussions with the creditoror the creditor’s agents with the aim of entering a credit agreement; andthe signing of the credit agreement by both parties did not take place onthe creditor’s business premisesIf a debtor signed a credit agreement in his/her own home after discussions with the creditor’s agent, the debtor can take advantage of a cooling-off period. This period gives the debtor time to decide whether he wishes to cancel the agreement or not. Q5: What is the purpose of consumer credit licenses and will a business which applies for a license automatically be granted one1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 established a licensing system which covers allactivities relating to the provision of credit. Businesses or individuals wishing to provide credit facilities to members of the public must be in possession of alicence issued by the Office of Fair Trading. Failure to obtain a licence means a business or an individual providing credit could face both civil and criminalpenalties. An unlicensed creditor may find they are unable to enforce theagreement against the debtor.2.Licences are not just issued to anyone.a.If you have previously broken the rules in the Consumer Credit Act 1974,you will probably not be issued with a licence.b.Criminal convictions for violence and dishonesty are likely to result in theapplicant being refused a licence.c.All licence holders must ensure that they conduct their businessesproperly. Any undesirable conduct on their part could mean that theOffice of Fair Trading may decide to suspend or, even more seriously,withdraw the licence.Case 3Q1: By re-labelling the bottles of Bulgarian chardonnay as champagne, what criminal offence is Wullie committing and which Act of Parliament will he be in breach of as a result of his activities1.Wullie will have committed the criminal offence of making a materially falseand misleading trade description as regards the origin of goods.2.He will be in breach of:a.Section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for making a false andmaterially misleading trade description in relation to goodsb.Section 2 of the Act gives definitions of various false and materiallymisleading trade descriptions andc.Section 3 explains what is meant by the word "false" in relation to atrade description.Q2: What defences are available to someone in Wullie’s position1. Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 provides the main defence to an accused in Wullie’s position:that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake, or due to relianceon information supplied to him, or to the act or default of another person, or to an accident, or due to some other cause beyond his control; andthat he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence toavoid the commission of such an offence by himself for any person under his controlWullie is not to be successful in any attempt to defend his actions given the deliberate nature of his crime.2．Candidates should be able to cite at least one of the following examples: Robertson v Dicicco [1972]Fletcher v Budgen [ I 974 ]Regina v Ford Motor Co [IQ74]Ford v Guild []990]Costello v Lowe [7990]。

1a.Explain the duty of careThe meaning of duty of care is no liability for a failure to take due care unless there was a duty to take care in the first place. A duty of care is imposed by both the common law and by statutory law. For example, the provisions of the Health&Safety At Work Act1974. The duty of care is therefore someone whom the defender ought to have contemplated as within sufficient proximity to the defender to be owed a duty of care.you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law , is my neighbour? The answer seems to be : persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that i ought reasonably to have them in contemplation when i am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called into question. In the Donoghue v Stevenson(1932) case, in this case, Mrs. Donoghue bought an opaque bottle of ginger beer for her friends in a cafe in paisley, and the shopkeeper poured some ginger beer over ice cream in a glass which Mrs. Donoghue drank. Then ,her friends find out the decomposed snail in the bottle. Mrs. Donoghue alleged because drunk the contaminated ginger beer, she suffered a serious illness. Because Mrs. Donoghue didn't have a contract with the seller nor with the manufacturer of the goods, So the only saving way is the manufacturer not taking care in the production of the product.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P279-283)b.Is Carla correct? The common law and statutory law.It not correct, The definition of Common Law Duty is a personal one to take reasonable care for the employee’s safety. He is required to take the same care as a reasonable and prudent employer would take in the same circumstances. This includes a duty to provide safe working premises. And about the Statutory Duty, the main statute here is the Health and Safety At work Act 1974 (HASAWA). This was imposed on earlier existing safety legislation which was not repealed,and so earlier legislation regulating safety in the workplace can still be relevant. And the implied terms are those which are not actually stated, but still impose obligations on the parties, and the reasons such as necessary to make the contract work, obvious or assumed, by custom and practice, by statute.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P326-329)2. The defences about the contributory negligence and Volenti non fit injuriaAbout the contributory negligence, as well as the above defences, a defender may argue that the pursuer contributed to his or her own losses. And the defender has been negligent but the pursuer’s own actions, in failing to take care for his own safety, have partly contributed to his injuries. For example, in the case about Sayers v Harlow Urban Council (1958), Sayers because of trying to climb out of a faulty locked toilet cubicle, she got hurt. And her actions were not a novus actus interveniens , the local authority was liable. However, because she tried to climb out whilst putting weight on the toilet roll fitting which was fragile, the damages payable were reduced by 25%. In the case, Chris get hurts because of he fell from the ladder he was on , no one help him with the ladder. But the company during him training always say when he do this work need a person to help him to with the ladder. But he don’t ask anyone to help, this is a contributory negligence.The meaning of V olenti Non Fit Injuria , it must be shown that the pursuer freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of the risk involved agreed to take that risk. The defender must establish that the pursuer had free choice and this would not apply if he/she acted out of duty or out of fear of losing his/her job.in the case of Walton&Morse v Dorrington(1977), a secretary worked in an office where colleagues smoked but there was good ventilation. When they were moved to another office without such ventilation the smoke became an irritant and she left when the employers would not make any changes. The employers were held in breach of a duty to provide" a working environment which is reasonably suitable." In the case, this work which Chrisalways do it, Chris know the risk of this work, but he don’t ask anyone to help, causes him fell from the ladder. This is V olenti Non Fit Injuria.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P300)3. Explain NegligenceNegligence is the most common delict and an action in delict arises where harm is caused carelessly or inadvertently. The law of negligence has developed to protect individuals from physical harm to the person(including psychiatric harm), and to property. Financial interests (with some exceptions) are only protected where the financial loss is consequential to the harm to the person or to property. in the case of Bourhill v Young (1943), the defender drove a motorcycle , and he collided with a car and was killed. The pursuer was on the far side of the tram when the accident occurred and did not witness the accident although she heard it. And she saw blood on the road later, then because of the nervous shock, get a subsequent miscarriage. It was held that it is not the fault of defender, because defender could not have reasonable foreseen, and would causes injury to the pursuer in her position behind the tram, she did not have the relevant proximity to the accident.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P278)4. Explain what ‘vicarious liability’The definition of the Vicarious Liability , in certain circumstances, someone can be liable for another’s delictual act. This can arise through agency, partnership and employment. Liability is transferred to the person benefiting or gaining by the actions of the wrongdoer(and they are more likely to be able to pay and/ or be covered by insurance).in the case of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co(1957), a father and son were employed by the same company. The son , whilst driving a lorry, Knocked over his father who claimed damages from the company. The company's insurers paid the father and then brought a successful action against the son for the amount paid.( Business Contractual Relationships F84N 34 P266-275)5. Which latin maxim proven to successfully bring a claim for negligenceThere have to be three elements present for a delict- damnum, injuria datum- or loss caused by a wrong.As noted above there must be three elements present:Damnum is a loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation. Loss can include damage to a person(Personal injury), damage to property, financial loss or interference with the peaceful enjoyment of propertyInjuria datum is caused by a legal wrong(wrongful conduct), an act may constitute both a crime and a civil wrong. For example, an assault can be both a criminal offence and a civil wrong. The criminal offence is prosecuted by the state, and damages may be payable after separate civil action by the injured party.Loss caused by a wrong is caused by culpa( fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer. The pursuer should prove: causa sine qua non: a causal link must be established and the breach must be the factual cause of the loss. And causa causans of loss: the legal cause in the sense of the effective or immediate cause. Sometimes there can be two separate causes or a chain of events or several factors: the causa causans has to be found from them.In the case of Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hosipatal Management Committee(1969), a man had a cup of tea then persistently vomited for three hours. HE contacted a hospital doctor who told him to go home and see his own doctor. The man died and had in fact been murdered through arsenic poisoning. An action against the doctor for treating the man failed as he would have died anyway-the failure to treat him, although a breach of duty, did not cause the harm.(PPT 39)。

Business Contractual Relationships Student: Liu XuaoTutor: Yuan LinClass: BusinessDate: 12.26.2011Case 1Question 1A duty of care is a legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring that it adheres to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. And the first element must be established to proceed with an action in negligence. And the pursuer must be able to show a duy of care imposed by law which the defender has breached. In turn, breaching a duty may subject an individual to liability in delict. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law, though it will often develop through the jurisprudence of common law. So in some way, duty of care may be considered a formalization of the social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within the society.At the case Tom and Danny has vicarious liability. The vicarious liability is an example of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employee and the employer. So in the case Danny has a duty of care with McGregorFor example: Donoghue v Stevenson 【1932 】That is about Mrs. Donoghue had gone to a cafe in Paisley with her friend who bought her an opaque bottle of ginger beer. Mrs. Donoghue has find a decomposed snail in the bottle of ginger beer when her had drunk the beer. Mrs. Donoghue alleged that as a result of having drunk the contaminated ginger beer she suffered a serious illness. Mrs. Dononghue didn’t hav e a contract with the seller nor with the manufacturer of the goods and so was she can possible remedy in delict against the manufacturer on the basis of his fault in not taking care in the production of the product.Question 2The standard of care should Mrs McGregor have been entitled to expect from Danny is the standard of care varies according o the particular circumstances. Something like driving in a icy conditions would require a greater standard of care than in normal weather conditions.Like the case of Nettleshio v Weston (1971), a learner driver owes the same standard of care to the other road users as an experienced driver, as another road users and pedestrians are entitled to expect a certain standard of care.From this case Danny must pay more attentions on check and repair the break of McGregor’s car. As a result of, Danny understand if he cannot ensure there has not any worry with the brake of McGregor’s car, it may make the accident happen. And it would be a terrible result. But the end Danny did not spend more time on McGregor’s car, he just worked on it for about 45 minutes. And after that he only tightened some screws and the problem appeared to have been sorted. That’s all is Danny didn’t reach his standard of care.Question 3Yes, I think McGregor can claim damage compensation. Because this case is belong of the delict of negligence. In the case it is essential that the pursuer proves that the defender’s wrongful negligence has caused harm or injury to the pursuer.In the ca se, because of McGregor’s car brakes failed so the accident was happen. And McGregor also injured in the accident. Before accident she had put her car in the garage to check and repair, but Danny didn’t pay enough attention to check and repair. So Danny’s negligence is the reason why the accident happen and make McGregor injured. And McGregor can give enough proof to prove her car crash is the reason by Danny’s negligence. And the court can according the effective cause to rule that Danny or the garage owner should pay the compensation of damage to McGregor.Case 2Question 1The liability applies to the keeper of an animal is The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 Act established provisions to clarify the strict liability for injury or damage caused by animals-that is liability even without deliberate or negligent conduct. It states that a person will be liable for any injury or damage caused by animal if three facts all apply:a) The person was the keeper of the animal at the time;b) The animal belongs to a species known as being likely;( i ) to severely injure or kill people or other animals, or( ii ) to materially damage property; andc) The injury or damage is directly related to those physical attributes or habits. The animals species’ known to be likely to injure or kill’ comprise dogs, and certain dangerous wild animals, which may injure by biting, or otherwise savaging, attacking or harrying.From the case Mark was the keeper of the dog. The dog belongs to a species known as being likely to severely injury or kill people or other animals. Because of the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987 Mark has strict liability with this accident.Question 2The precautions should Mark have taken when going for a walk in the country with Tricky are: a) take the dog chain;b) Sets a cap on the dog’s mouth.That may be can help Mark and his dog.Question 3No he can’t.Under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987, the following defences are available to the keeper of an animal: if the injury or damage was due wholly to the fault of the pursuer eg where the pursuer goaded a docile animal which then attacked the pursuer in defence; where the pursuer has voluntarily accepted the risk ie volenti non fit injuria; injury or damage is caused by the mere fact that the animal is present on a road or elsewhere9 e.g. an animal straying onto a road and so causing a traffic accident )In this case, above three points are not satisfied, so Mark cannot defend for herself. Mark will carry out the strict liability.Case like Behrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd 【1957 】The cases is about the plaintiffs, husband and wife, were both midgets and were on exhibition inside a booth in the funfair at Olympia, for which their manager had obtained a licence from the defendants, when the booth was knocked down by elephants on their way to perform in the circus ring. A small dog, the property of the daughter of the plaintiffs’ manager, which, contrary to regulations, had been brought into the funfair, had run out of the booth, snapping and barking at one of the elephants, which turned and went after the dog; some of the other elephants followed, and pats of the booth fell on the wife who received injuries. Evidence was given that the husband and wife were exceptionally dependants upon each other. The court hold the circus should have taken precautions to prevent the elephant from causing harm. So he circus should be liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff.Case 3Question 1Five defences available to a defender in a negligence action:a) Statutory justificationA person may have a good defence to an action in delict if he can show that his acts are covered by statutory authority.b) Self-defenceSelf-defence is valid defence if the defender acted to preserve himself, his family or his property, so long as the act was reasonable and in keeping with the nature of the threat. If a blow is struck in response only to verbal attract, there is no defence.c) CriminalityThe pursuer will be unable to claim damages if he and the defender were involved in criminal activity.d) IllegalitySimilar to the criminality defense, a person will not be able to maintain a cause of action if he has to rely on couduct which is illegal or contrary to the public policy.e) V olenti non fit injuriaIt is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results. It only applies to the risk which a reasonable person wouldconsider them as having assumed by their actions.Question 2For the case ‘a’, Rab can defend by the defence of criminality. From the statutory justification: A person may have a good defence to an action in delict if he can show that his acts are covered by statutory authority. So Rab can defend because he and Jamesie were involved in criminal activity. For example: Ashton v. Turner 1981 RTR 54:After an evening’s drinking three men committed a bur galary and sought to escape in a ca r owned by one of them. The car crashed and the passenger was injured. He claimed damages alleging negligence against the driver and the car owner. The court hold that dismissing the claim that as a matter of public policy the law might not recognize a duty of care owed by one participant in a crime to another for acts done in the course of that criminal commission.I n the case ‘b’, the driver can defend by the contributory negligence. From the contributory negligence, it is common law defence a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. Because the driver was negligence due then he didn’t know Margaret would come out before and go across when the light change to amber, but the Margaret was negligent too.The cited is Hanlon v. Cuthbertson 1981:A female passenger in a taxi who was injured as a result of an accideng and he taxi driver argued contributory negligence because she was not wearing a seat belt which otherwise have protected her in the accident. The court hold the pursuer should have her damages reduced by ten percent as a result of the contributory negligence by herself.In the case ‘c’, Knockbuckle player who assaulted Gavin can defend by ‘vonlenti non fit injuria’. The vonlenti non fit injuria it is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result; they cannot then sue if harm actually results. It only applies to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions. Because Gavin is able to think of injure when the sporting. It is implies to agree.Question 3In case ‘a’ can be successful, because it is called criminality, they both committed crime, thus Jamessie can escape obligation.In the case ‘b’ the bus driver can reduce liability by the defence of contributory negligence. Margaret should have her damages reduced by 40% as a result because the action of the bus driver going across under the traffic light change to amber, didn’t break the law, but Margaret was not wearing her seat belt had broken the law.In case ‘c’ cannot be successful, because in the spor t, the action is normal and legal; actions refer to rule of games. In the case, Knockbuckie’s behavior was not out of those actions in the rule, thus he must be make obligation.。

Outcome 1From the case we know that Michael pushed an all weather jacket. Unlucky, there have something wrong with this jacket. After wearing for only one day the zip had broken and water had penetrated and he had felt cold. This jacket is the unqualified products and not sold by manufacturer’s description. The sale of goods Act 1979is the main piece of legislation helping consumer to seek protection when their purchases go wrong. Michael could protect himself rights through the sale of goods Act1979.The Sale of Goods Act 1979 protects the right of consumer. However, the act has been being modified and influenced by the followed legislation. Most notably of the subsequent legislation are the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulation 2002. In the section 2 of SOGA1979, contract sale is “a contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in good s to the buyer for a money consideration called a price.Michael needs to look at section 2 of SOGA 1979 and keep receipt or invoice of this jacket. The receipt or invoice show when Michael pay the jacket and get the jacket. This is sale not barter. Barter is use an item to replace another item, there is no money paid. It also can be the basis for Michael to protect his rights. In law, sale is a party obtains the ownership of goods then sold to another party. A contract can be in writing, be made orally, or party in writing and partly or orally.The section 12 of SOGA said that the seller must be the owner of the goods. If the seller does not have right of the goods and sells those goods, then the buyer would not gain a good title of goods. And if the third party has the ownership of the goods the buyer can not get the rights of the goods. The obligations from the section 12 can’t respected or astricted by the agreement under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended. Based on the decision from the case of Niblett Ltd v Confectioners Materials Co (1921) and McDonald v Provan (1960) consumers are successful to claim the seller breach the section 12 of SOGA.According to the section 13 of SOGA 1979 the seller to sell goods at the same time they must to fulfill their obligations. The seller to sell goods must fit himself description. It was held in the case of Roberts & Co &Yule (1896) and Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) the sellers breach the section 13 of SOGA as the good not sold by description. The section 14 (2A) of SOGA rules that the seller sell good s must be fit for its purpose and have satisfactory quality. And the section 14 (2B) rules the goods must be appearance and finished, safety and durability. If not, you as the supplier are obliged to sort out the problem. In the case, the jacket is unqualified goods and not fits seller’s description. Michael can sue the seller.If the buyer have some special requirement about the goods they should tell the seller before buy the good. As mentioned above there is strict liability under section 14. Sothe buyer is unnecessary to prove the damage is caused by the seller.The claimant is entitled to have a legal action to against the defendant for the defendant goods (jacket) in terms of the sale of good Act 1979. So the seller could have s legal action to against Michael of his not clearly requirement. If buyer has some special requirement they should tell the supplier clearly before the section will apply.In this case Michael buys an unqualified jacket and the seller sold not by his description. Michael could claim the seller for breach section 13 and 14 of SOGA. In the case of Roberts & Co &Yule (1896) and Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) the sellers breach the section 13 of SOGA as the good not sold by description. Michael could sue the seller to protect himself rights.Outcome2In this case Michael bought an expensive garden maintenance set included mower and the trimmer. He paid by credit from the credit company which normally provided finance for the shop’s customers. Few days later the mower and the trimmer break down and the shop is closing down.Michael could protect his rights through The Consumer Credit Act 1974. He needs to know something about the CCA1974. The CCA1974 rules that the company provide credit must have license. Company could apply for the; license in the OFT and hand in the apply table to the Director General. Applications for license are made to the Director General and have five years validity. If company provide credit without license is a criminal offence and will be result in imprisonment.The CCA 1974 gives consumer the right to settle a fixed sum credit agreement. If consumer needs to pay much money they should notices to the lender and paying the outstanding sum in full. In section 8 of the CCA 1974 a consumer credit agreement is defined as the creditor supplies the debtor with credit not exceeding￡25,000. a consumer hire agreement is defined in section 15 of the CCA1974 as an agreement made by owner of goods hire goods to other person and lasting for more than three months can’t require the hirer paid exceeding￡25,000. In this case is relate to consumer credit agreement not consumer hire agreement.Running account credit is said that the bank give debtors credit demand on up to an agreed credit limit. The credit include bank overdraft and some shop credit accounts. Fixed sum credit is said that the debtor can receives credit in a single sum or in instalments.The section 60 of CCA provides some rules for have a document. And it also was under the Consumer Credit Regulation 1983. The Consumer Credit Regulation 1983rules something seriously about the document. The document must contain the name and address of the parties and amount of the total charge for credit. There also should have amount and timing of each payment and the total amount payable. There need to provide details of any security to be provided by the debtor and details of any charges payable by the debtor if on default. In the first page must declare which type of agreement in this document. Last, the document must be signed and copies kept both debtor and creditor. Michael could provide the document to the judge.Under section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally in fraud or breach of contract. Sometimes creditor is also the supplier of goods. If the supplier disappeared the consumer could claim the creditor to protect their rights. In this case the shop is closing down when the mower and trimmer break down. So Michael could sue the credit company which normally provided finance for the shop’s consumers.In this case Michael bought a expensive maintenance set included the mower and the trimmer. He paid by the credit due to the expensive. Few days later the mower and the trimmer break down and the shop is closing down. According to the credit company normally provided finance for the shop’s consumers Michael could claim the credit company to compensation his loss.Outcome3In this case, Michael buys the same set from another then he notices that the specification is different from the one displayed as a demonstrator. The electrical items were not as large and the hand held tools were fiberglass rather than the stainless steel.The Trade Description Act 1968 plays an important role in protecting consumer of goods and services through the criminal law. Michael could protect his rights through the TDA 1968. In section 2 of the TDA 1968 a trade description id defined as indirect or direct describe of goods.The fitness for purposes, strength and performance must include in the description. The description should have the date or place of manufacture, production and processing or reconditioning of the goods. The description need to introduce the quantity, size of the goods and the composition of the goods. In the description should have any other physical characteristics of the goods and other history of the including ownership or use. Another important point is to list any testing by any person and the results of such testing and any approval by any person or conformity with a type of approval.False description means misleading to a material degree. Relate to the case, Michael see the set displayed as demonstrator and buy it. Because of the displayed goods is a false description make Michael believe goods material. Michael could sue the seller false description. Based on the case of Wings v Ellis (1985) and the case of British Airways Board v Taylor (1985) consumers claim the seller for false description and breach of the section 14.In the section 14 of the TDA 1968 a false description is criminal offence for any person in a trade or a business. It included some situations. If someone make any statement which he knows to be false or reckless. The false description may be included the location, person by whom provided and amenities. The provision, nature and the time sometimes may be false. The false description also included manner in which and the approval, examination or evaluation of any person. In this case, supplier breach of section 14 due the false description. It will be a criminal offence.However the defendant is entitled to have a legal action to against the claimant, in section 24 of TDA 1968 called defence. The supplier may said that consumer give mistake or reliance information to him result in the defective goods. And that he has does his best to avoid take place this false description, due to consumer doesn’t tell him the details about clearly. Such as the requirement of size and material. Consumer should check up goods before out of the shop.In this case Michael purchased the garden good is not satisfied because it is different from the displayed one. Michael could sue the retailer for breach of section 14 of the TDA 1968, he should receive compensation. But the seller could defence because of consumer’s unclearly requirement lead to this mistake and he does his best to avoid this mistake. If retailer could provide strong evidence the defence may be successful. If not, the retailer must compensate the loss of Michael or give Michael the right size and composition goods.。

Business contractual relationship:Assessment 1:Case one:“A contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”A contract of sale of goods’ therefore covers both a ‘sale’ and an ‘agreement to sell’. Where the seller can transfer the goods immediately, and is willing and able to do so, then there is a ‘sale’. However, where there is some sort of condition that must be fulfilled or some act has to be carried out before the sale can take place, and then there is merely an ‘agreement to sell’.The legal effect of a ‘sale’ is that the purchaser obtains a real right over the goods as property in the goods has passed to the purchaser. However, in an ‘agreement to sell’the purchaser only holds personal right against the seller in respect of the contract.Mary can use SOGA1979 Term to protect herself right and power.Implied Terms of SOGA 1979 include that section12- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of Title, section13-Sale by Description, section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’, and section15- Sale by Sample.Section 12 -- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of TitleAt the first, the seller must have ‘title’ to the goods; the right to sell the goods. The seller must either own the goods or should have the appropriate authority from the owner to sell the goods.No third party should have any claim on the goods which would prevent the buyer from obtaining a good title and quite possession of the goods. If there is any charge or encumbrance over the goods by the third party, then all known charges or encumbrance would required to be disclosed prior to the sale.Section13-Sale by DescriptionOn the other hand, this section implies the term that the goods are to comply with their description. It is clear that if the buyer dose not sees the goods prior to purchase and buy s those relying on a description, then this section would apply.However, SOGA 1979 also makes clears that a sale by description can also apply to goods exposed for sale and selected by the customer.Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’,Satisfactory QualityIn English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensure that goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required –the caveat emptor rule.In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith.Section 14 only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business so it only covers the situation where the seller is in business. It does not cover private sales although the status of the buyer is irrelevant. Section 14 applies to business buyers as well as to private buyers.The quality of goods includes their state and conditions and this would therefore means that if goods are advertised as in a sale , or seconds etc, this could have some effect on quality to be expected. There are factors that are listed in section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases :( 1)Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kinds in question are commonly supplied(2)Appearance and finish (3)Freedom form minor defect (4) Safety (5) Durability.Reasonable Fitness for PurposeUnder section 14 of SOGA 1979, there is an implied term that the goods are reasonable fit for the purpose, whether or not that is purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied.In the case, Mary’s tumble dryer has quality problems and line installation defects caused by fire. This does not conform to the provisions of product safety. Because this product’ defects cause serious consequences. Of course, the hairdryer to use only two months on the problems that the hairdryer is not durability. Hence，Mary could use Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’ because that Mary’s situation conforms to the content that the law stipulate.Section15- Sale by SampleIn this section there are two implied terms:That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality: and that the goods will be free from any defect, marking them unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.Case two:Charlie can't use the SOGA1979 bill rights, because Charlie did not directly buy tumble dryer.Charlie can use the Law of Delict to protect his own power，the Law of Delict, like the law of contract , is a part of the law of obligations. A delict has been defined as: “a civil wrong committed by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liability to make reparation for any consequential loss or injury may arise”General principles of Delictual liabilityAs noted above there must be three elements present:A loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation.Caused by a legal wrong (wrong conduct)Caused by culpa(fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.Charlie lung inhalation of smoke to his shock in this belongs to the serious loss. According to the case, Charlie is not negligence resulting in the fire is mainly because short circuit caused the fire.Charlie can also use the Consumer Protection Act 1987to protect his rights and interests.It contains importance extension of the privity of contract rights for consumers if goods are unsafe, so that rights also exist directly against producers and those who hold themselves out as producers.The consumer protection act 1987 deal with three main aspects of consumer protection: product liability, customer safety and misleading pricing.Product liabilityPart one of the customer protection act 1987 transport the product liability directive into the UK law.part 1 of the establishes is a principle of strict liability relating to defective products which cause damages to other property and injure to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contract with the product.Strict liability means that the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The product liability section made producers liable for any damage done by defective products. The Act goes even further in ensuring that customers are protected from damage or injure caused by faulty goods.In the case, Charl ie’s safety and healthy was threaten by the gas that he absorb in the fire. This event happened due to product defect. Therefore, this event belongs to the product liability act.Consumer safetyPart 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.It deal with consumer safety and allows the government to regulate the design, components and construction of goods which could, if defective cause injury. Charlie also fits the bill because it is due to product defects cause harm. what’s more, the tumble dryer damage his health in this event and there is a bad effect on his life. Therefore, this event is suiting to Part 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.Misleading pricingPart 3 of the Act makes it illegal to mislead consumes about the price of any good, service or facility. The provisions of this part are quite comprehensive and cover such services as banking, gas and electricity supplies, telephone service, parking accommodation and all goodsCase 3:The b oss’s word is not obeyed no clause exempting.The first does not conform to the provisions; this statement is not a fair statement. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ——regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. One of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability.Section17 UCTA1977covers attempts to exclude contractual liability in consumer and standard form contract.If a document is singed at the time of making the contract, its contents become terms of that contract, regardless of whether they have been read or understood.If separate written terms are presented at the time a contract is made, for example by handing over ticket, those terms only become part of the contract if it can be said that the recipient had reasonable notice of them. However an exemption clause is only incorporated into the contract if notice is given before or at the time of contracting.Case 4：Debtor –creditor –supplier agreement. Where the creditor is also the supplier of the goods. In these agreement where goods or services cost more than$100or less than $30000 the debtor can hold the creditor jointly and severally liable with supplier when he claims misrepresentation or breach of contract against the supplier –known as ‘ connected leader liability’.Examples where there would be a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement include purchases of goods from retailers where there is a pre-existing financing arrangement; hire-purchase arrangements where the finance is provided by a finance company; and credit card transactions.Under section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable in respect of any breach of contract. The consumer would therefore choose to claim against either the creditor or the supplier.The creditor and supplier may be the same person, and has links to a creditor or vendor who will provide loans to the vendor's customers, this is a very common type of agreement generally suppliers belong to the intermediary in the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, however section75 of the Act allows debit charges lenders and suppliers, If a breach of contract, plus 85 pages under section 75 Credit belongs to consumer creditor with supplier belongs to the same party this clause can Act 1974 Dave supplier creditor claims.。

推荐-商务契约关系1hnd精品Business contractual relationship:Assessment 1:Case one:“A contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”A contract of sale of goods’ therefore covers both a ‘sale’ and an ‘agreement to sell’. Where the seller can transfer the goods immediately, and is willing and able to do so, then there is a ‘sale’. However, where there i s some sort of condition that must be fulfilled or some act has to be carried out before the sale can take place, and then there is merely an ‘agreement to sell’.The legal effect of a ‘sale’ is that the purchaser obtains a real right over the goods as property in the goods has passed to the purchaser. However, in an ‘agreement to sell’the purchaser only holds personal right against the seller in respect of the contract.Mary can use SOGA1979 Term to protect herself right and power.Implied Terms of SOGA 1979 include that section12- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of Title, section13-Sale by Description, section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’, and section15- Sale by Sample.Section 12 -- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of TitleAt the firs t, the seller must have ‘title’ to the goods; the right to sell the goods. The seller must either own the goods or should have the appropriate authority from the owner to sell the goods.No third party should have any claim on the goods which would prevent the buyer from obtaining a good title and quite possession of the goods. If there is any charge or encumbrance over the goods by the third party, then all known charges or encumbrance would required to be disclosed prior to the sale.Section13-Sale by DescriptionOn the other hand, this section implies the term that the goods are to ply with their description. It is clear that if the buyer dose not sees the goods prior to purchase and buy s those relying on a description, then this section would apply.However, SOGA 1979 also makes clears that a sale by description can also apply to goods exposed for sale and selected by the customer.Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’,Satisfactory QualityIn English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensure that goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required –the caveat emptor rule.In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith.Section 14 only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business so it only covers the situation where the seller is in business. It does not cover private sales although the status of the buyer is irrelevant. Section 14 applies to business buyers as well as to private buyers.The quality of goods includes their state and conditions and this would therefore means that if goods are advertised as in a sale , or seconds etc, this could have some effect on quality to be expected. There are factors that are listed in section 14 of SOGA1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases :( 1)Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kinds in question are monly supplied(2)Appearance and finish (3)Freedom form minor defect (4) Safety (5) Durability.Reasonable Fitness for PurposeUnder section 14 of SOGA 1979, there is an implied term that the goods are reasonable fit for the purpose, whether or not that is purpose for which such goods are monly supplied.In the case, Mary’s tumble dryer has quality problems and line installation defects caused by fire. This does not conform to the provisions of product safety. Because this product’ defects cause serious consequences. Of course, the hairdryer to use only two months on the problems that the hairdryer is not durability. Hence，Mary could use Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’ because that Mary’s situation conforms to the content that the law stipulate.Section15- Sale by SampleIn this section there are two implied terms:That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality: and that the goods will be free from any defect, marking them unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.Case two:Charlie can't use the SOGA1979 bill rights, because Charlie did not directly buy tumble dryer.Charlie can use the Law of Delict to protect his own power，the Law of Delict, like the law of contract , is a part of the law of obligations. A delict has been defined as: “a civil wrong mitted by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liab ility to make reparation for any consequential loss orinjury may arise”General principles of Delictual liabilityAs noted above there must be three elements present:A loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation.Caused by a legal wrong (wrong conduct)Caused by culpa(fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.Charlie lung inhalation of smoke to his shock in this belongs to the serious loss. According to the case, Charlie is not negligence resulting in the fire is mainly because short circuit caused the fire.Charlie can also use the Consumer Protection Act 1987to protect his rights and interests.It contains importance extension of the privity of contract rights for consumers if goods are unsafe, so that rights also exist directly against producers and those who hold themselves out as producers.The consumer protection act 1987 deal with three main aspects of consumer protection: product liability, customer safety and misleading pricing.Product liabilityPart one of the customer protection act 1987 transport the product liability directive into the UK law.part 1 of the establishes is a principle of strict liability relating to defective products which cause damages to other property and injure to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contract with the product.Strict liability means that the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The product liability sectionmade producers liable for any damage done by defective products. The Act goes even further in ensuring that customers are protected from damage or injure caused by faulty goods.。