商务契约关系

businesscontractualrelationships商务契约关系oue3DN97 34:Business Contractual RelationshipsCase 1Question 1At the case Tom and Danny has vicarious liability. The vicarious liability is anexample of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employeeand the employer. So in the case Danny has a duty of care with McGregor. Donoghue v Stevenson【1932】Question 2The standard of care should Mrs McGregor have been entitled to expect from Dannyis the standard of care varies according o the particular circumstances. Something likedriving in a icy conditions would require a greater standard of care than in normalweather conditions. Like the case of Nettleshio v Weston(1971), a learner driverowes the same standard of care to the other road users as an experienced driver, asanother 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 ofMcGregor?s car. As a result of, Danny understand if he cannot ensure there has notany worry with the brakeof McGregor?s car, it may make the accident happen. And itwould be a terrible result. But the end Danny did not spend more time on McGregor?scar, he just worked on it for about 45 minutes. And after that he only tightened somescrews and the problem appeared to have been sorted.That?s all is Danny didn?t reachhis sta ndard of care. Question 3Question 1The liability applies to the keeper of an animal is The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987Act established provisions to clarify the strict liability for injury or damage caused byanimals-that is liability even without deliberate or negligent conduct. Itstates that aperson 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; andFrom the case Mark was the keeper of the dog. The dog belongs to a species known asbeing likely to severely injury or kill people or other animals. Because of the Animals(Scotland) Act 1987 Mark has strict liability with this accident.The strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible fordamages their actions, belongings or products, regardless of any “fault” on their part.Question 2The precautions should Mark have taken when going for a walk in the country withTricky are:a) take the dog chain; b) Sets a cap on thedog?s mouth. That may be canhelp Mark and his dog.Question 3No he can?t.Under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987, the following defences are available to thekeeper of an animal:if the injury or damage was due wholly to the fault of the pursuereg where the pursuer goaded a docile animal which then attacked the pursuer indefence; 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 orelsewhere9 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.Another case likeBehrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd【1957】The cases is about the plaintiffs, husband and wife, were both midgets and were onexhibition inside a booth in the funfair at Olympia, for which their manager hadobtained a licence from the defendants, when the booth was knocked down byelephants on their way to perform in the circus ring. A small dog, the property of thedaughter of the plaintiffs? manager,which, contrary to re gulations, had been broughtinto 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 patsof the booth fell on the wife who received injuries. Evidence was given that thehusband and wife were exceptionally dependants upon each other. The court hold thecircus should have taken precautions to prevent the elephant from causing harm. Sohe 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 hisacts are covered by statutory authority.b)Self-defenceSelf-defence is valid defence if the defender acted to preserve himself, his familyor his property, so long as the act was reasonable and in keeping with the nature ofthe 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 involvedin criminal activity.d)IllegalitySimilar to the criminality defense, a person will not be able to maintain a cause ofaction if he has to rely on couduct which is illegal or contrary to the public policy.e)Volenti non fit injuriaQuestion 2For the case …a?, Rab can defend by the defence of criminality. From the statutoryjustification:A person may have a good defence to an action in delict if he can showthat his acts are covered by statutory authority. So Rab can defend because he andJamesie were involved in criminal activity.For example:Ashton v. Turner 1981 RTR 54:The cited isHanlon v. Cuthbertson 1981:A female passenger in a taxi who was injured as a result of an accideng and he taxidriver argued contributory negligence because she was not wearing a seat belt whichotherwise have protected her in the accident. The court hold the pursuer should haveher damages reduced by ten percent as a result of the contributory negligence byherself.Question 3In the case …b? the bus driver can reduce liability by the defence of contributorynegligence. Margaret should have her damages reduced by 40% as a result becausethe action of the bus driver going across under the traffic light change to amber, didn?tbreak the law, but Margaret was not wearing her seat belt had broken the law.In case …c? cannot be successful, because in the sport, the action is normal and legal;actions refer to rule of games. In the case, Knockbuckie?s behavior was not out ofthose actions in the rule, thus he must be make obligation.。

商务契约范本，规范合作关系商务契约是商业世界中一种非常重要的法律文件，用于明确商业合作双方的权利义务，并规范双方的合作关系。

通过合理的商务契约，可以为商业合作提供明确的指导，减少合作中的纠纷和风险。

本文将介绍商务契约的概念、作用和必要性，并提供一些常见的商务契约范本，以帮助读者更好地理解和运用商务契约。

什么是商务契约？商务契约是指商业合作双方通过协商达成的一种书面文件，用于明确双方的权利义务、合作条件和交付要求等重要事项。

商务契约可以是双方自行起草的协议，也可以是根据相关法律法规制定的标准合同模板。

无论采用何种形式，商务契约都应当具备明确、具体、可执行的特点，以确保合作的顺利进行。

商务契约的作用和必要性商务契约在商业活动中发挥着至关重要的作用，其主要作用有以下几点：1. 明确双方权利义务商务契约可以明确双方在合作中的权利和义务，防止合作关系中出现理解歧义或利益分歧。

通过明确约定各方的权益，商务契约能够帮助双方更好地理解自己的角色和责任，提高合作的效率和效果。

2. 规范合作流程商务契约不仅明确双方的权利义务，还规范了合作的具体流程和操作步骤。

商务合作通常涉及多个环节和部门，合作方通过制定合作流程，可以确保各个环节衔接顺利，提高合作的透明度和可控性。

3. 规避合作风险商务契约能够帮助合作双方识别和规避潜在的合作风险。

合同中通常包含风险分担、违约责任和争议解决等条款，为双方在合作过程中出现的纠纷提供了明确的解决途径，降低了合作风险并增加了合作的可靠性。

4. 保护商业利益商务契约有助于保护双方的商业利益。

合同中通常包括保密条款、知识产权等重要内容，确保商业机密和知识产权的安全性，防止不当流失和侵权行为，维护双方的合法权益。

5. 便于争议解决商务契约作为法律文件有法律效力，可以作为争议解决的依据。

当合作关系出现矛盾和纠纷时，若有完备的商务契约，就可以依照契约的约定进行协商、调解或诉讼，提高纠纷解决的效率和公正性。

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。

5.1.2 专题2 —货物买卖：所有权转移，合同的履行及违反所有权转移(Transfer of Property)在通过关于货物买卖的成文法之前，货物所有权在什么时候转移给买方由苏格兰普通法管辖，其规则为货物所有权在货物交付（delivery）时转移。

然而，成文法SOGA 1979 使苏格兰有了不同于其以前的所有权转移的规则。

该规则来源于英兰格普通法中关于有形动产的法律。

SOGA 1979中规定，货物所有权可以与货物交付分开而独立转移，例如在合同中约定货物所有权转移的时间。

在破产或清算中，当清算人或财产托管人与其他债权人同时对破产财产产生请求权时，上述所有权转移规则会变得尤为重要3。

相应的，如果货物产生灭失，其损失应由货物法律上的“所有者”来承担。

因为除当事人之间另有约定外，货物风险随所有权转移而转移（Risk passes with ownership）。

SOGA 1979第20条规定了两个关于货物风险转移的例外。

首先，当货物的交付由于卖方或买方的过错而被延迟时，货物灭失的风险由造成延迟交付的过错方承担。

其次，货物的买方或卖方在作为货物的管理人或运送人期间，仍对货物负有适当的注意义务（Reasonable Care）。

（在此期间，因作为货物管理人或运送人的一方没有履行其注意义务而致货物灭失的，由该方负担相应责任）。

你可能还能回忆起专题1中的两个概念：现存物（existing goods）和将来物（future goods）。

SOGA 1979还将货物分为特定物（Specific goods）和不特定物（unascertained goods）。

特定物在专3例如：当卖方将货物交付给买方占有但双方约定所有权尚不发生转移，如买方破产，则由买方占有的卖方先前交付的财产不能列入破产财产的范围，而应由卖方直接取回财产。

题1中也描述过其内容。

不特定物(unascertained goods)是指在合同成立时尚未指定并就其达成一致的货物。

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.。

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.。

商务契约关系outcome2
第一章契约的定义与种类
契约是指双方当事人就某种事项达成的一致意见，经过法律程序的认可后具有法律效力的协议。

契约种类包括口头契约、书面契约、法定契约和约定行为契约。

第二章商务契约的要素
商务契约包括因合同产生的交易，因此其要素较为复杂包括契约对象、契约条款、契约标的、契约期限、契约价款等。

第三章商务契约的履行和解除
商务契约是双方当事人通过协商达成的合同，需要履行合同的内容。

如果在履行过程中出现问题，双方可通过合同中的解除条款来解除合同。

同时，被迫终止合同所导致的损失需由违约方承担。

第四章商务契约的争议解决方式
商务契约争议的解决方式包括调解、仲裁和诉讼。

其中，调解是一种比较流行的解决方式，但需要双方当事人达成一致；仲裁是一种公正、快捷的解决方式，但需要确定仲裁人；诉讼是一种最后的解决方式，但程序较为繁琐且费用高。

第五章商务契约管理和风险控制
商务契约管理和风险控制是商务交易中不可忽视的一环。

在契约签订之前，需要对双方当事人进行风险评估和背景调查；在契约执行过程中，需要进行风险监控和风险防范，确保契约条款的履行。

结论
商务契约关系在商业交易中具有重要的地位，要素、履行、争议解决、管理和风险控制是其中必不可少的环节，需要双方当事人充分了解并遵守相关规定，确保商务契约秩序的稳定与发展。

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.。

商业伙伴关系契约本商业伙伴关系契约（下文简称“契约”），于_____年____月____日签署，由以下签约方（以下简称“各方”）共同约定以下条款，以确保双方在商业合作过程中的权益和责任。

第一条目的和范围1.1 本契约的目的在于明确各方商业合作的基本原则和规范，并为双方的权益提供保障。

1.2 本契约适用于各方在商业活动中的所有合作项目，涵盖但不限于产品销售、资源共享、市场推广等方面。

第二条合作内容2.1 合作项目的具体内容由各方另行协商确定，并以书面形式确认或通过电子邮件确认为有效。

2.2 合作期限为双方共同确认的起始日期至合同解除或履行完毕之日。

2.3 合作期间，各方应根据业务需要和合作协议的规定，保持相互沟通和协调，及时解决合作过程中出现的问题，以确保项目的顺利进行。

第三条责任和义务3.1 各方应本着互利共赢的原则，诚实守信地执行契约要求，不得有任何违反法律法规或商业道德的行为。

3.2 合作期间，各方应积极履行自身职责，保证合作活动的正常进行。

同时，各方应保护和维护他方的商业利益和商业机密，不得向任何第三方泄露有关商业合作的敏感信息。

3.3 如发生不可抗力事件，包括但不限于自然灾害、战争、政府管制等不可预见的事件，导致无法履行本合同的，各方应及时通知他方，并在合理的时间内协商解决办法。

在此期间，各方暂时免除因不可抗力事件而产生的责任。

第四条保密条款4.1 各方应对双方在商业合作过程中所了解到的商业机密严格保密，不得向任何第三方透露或泄露，除非获得对方书面授权。

4.2 商业机密包括但不限于商业计划、技术信息、客户信息、财务数据等，无论是口头或书面形式，都应受到严格的保护。

4.3 在合同解除或终止后，各方应归还对方提供的商业机密资料，并删除存储在电子设备上的相关信息。

第五条违约和解决纠纷5.1 若各方中的任何一方违反了本契约的约定，应承担相应的违约责任，并赔偿因此给对方造成的损失。

5.2 对于因合作活动产生的争议或纠纷，各方应尽力通过友好协商和合作解决。