【免费下载】商务契约关系Outcome1

Case 1Q1：Maggie 没受伤，她是否有权利起诉SELLER；商品是in a sale,是否影响MAGGIE的权利？（买方和卖方的关系）A1：1，Yes, she can do that.2，The basic law is the seller violation the Implied Terms of SOGA 1979. It is include four terms.a)Section 12 SOGA 1979 Implied Terms of Titleb)Section 13 SOGA 1979 Sale by Descriptionc)Section 14 SOGA 1979 Satisfactory Quality and ReasonableFitness for Purpose.d)Section 15 SOGA 1979 Sale by SampleThis case was violation Section 14 SOGA 1979.Section 14 implied two terms: Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for the Purpose. The major violation of this case is Satisfactory Quality.⑴The standard of Section 14 of SOGA 1979 is “that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of any description of the goods, the price (i f relevant)and all other relevant circumstances”.⑵There are factors that are listed in Section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases:☉Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kind inquestion are commonly supplied.☉Appearance and finish☉Freedom from minor defects☉Safety and☉Durability⑶In this case, the tumble dryer is lack of safety and durability. Maggie just bought it two months, so it still a new tumble dryer. It was caught fire. Clearly, it is lack of durability. The tumble is a latent defect in the wiring that lead to detonate. So we said it is lack of safety.3,Maggie bought the tumble dryer in a sale, but it does not diminish the buyer’s rights unless they are classed as “seconds” etc or a particular defect is brought to the attention of the buyer as being the reason for the reduction in price. Maggie did not know the bug of the tumble dryer before she buy it. So Maggie’ s rights should not be diminished.4,◎The cited case is Thomson v J Sears ＆Co(1926), the pursuer purchased boots for himself and suffered periostosis of the foot as a result of the insole having crumpled up and become knotted and nodular. It should be obvious that the boots were going to be worn as footwear.◎In the case of Priest V Last(1903),a buyer was scalded after using a hot water bottle and was successful in suing the seller onthe basis that the bottle was unfit for the purpose.Strict liability also applies and it is no defence that the seller has done all that is reasonable to avoid breach of the provision.(nao)◎In the case of Frost V Aylesbury Dairy CO ltd(1905),where the plaintiff’s wife died from consuming milk containing germs of typhoid fever and the dairy could not defend the action on the basis that they could not reasonably have discovered the presence of the virus in the milk.(pao)Q2:Charlie受伤，MAGGIE该怎么办？（the injury of Charlie）A2:1, Charlie can not impaled the seller. Because that he is not the buyer.Charlie no contractual relationship with the seller. The provisions of SOGA 1979 only apply to the buyer, not to any other people or party. He has no claim against the seller under the Act.2,There is a case that Donoghue V Sterenson 1932,Mrs Donoghue drunk some of mixture and her friend then lifted the bottle and was pouring out the remainder into a tumbler when a decomposed snail floated out of he bottle and into her drink. Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and illness as a result. She claimed damages against the manufacturer. The House of Lords ruled that the manufacturer would have to pay Mrs Donoghue damages as he owed a duty of care to anyone using his product. He had failed in that duty of care.3,Accroding to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that the seller hasto return both the purchase price and compensate for any damage.The buyer does not have to prove negligence on the part of the seller. To the dangerous products causing damages or injury, manufacturer should assume the strict liability. Just presume fault of manufacturer.4In this case, Charlie should according to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to implead. The process should not prove the fault of manufacturer, just mention Charlie was injury.Q3:Seller说是厂商的责任，零售商是否可以就此免责。

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]。

Leadership & StrategyWorkforce Management -- Worlds of DifferenceBy Jonathan KatzLanguage isn't the only communication barrier when establishing foreign operations. Every culture has its own workplace customs and expectations, and savvy managers should try to be knowledgeable about them.Cultural BlunderDec. 1, 2007 -- Eraser Man seemed like a harmless gimmick to promote lean manufacturing throughout the global operations of Columbia, Md.-based W.R. Grace & Co. The pink eraser mascot was supposed to convey a simple message: eradicate or "erase" waste. But when the $2.8 billion specialty chemicals manufacturer introduced Eraser Man during a focus-group session in China, the company's Asian staff was perplexed and perhaps a little miffed. That's because in China, ‘erase’ actually means invisible."They said, 'Do you really want this program to be invisible?'" recalls Michael Piergrossi, W.R. Grace's vice president of human resources. "Of course, the answer is, 'no.'"Also at issue was the color pink. "Pink is just not an acceptable color in China; it's feminine. No self-respecting man would want to be associated with a program that's marked by the color pink," Piergrossi explains.Grace's cultural gaffe wasn't unique. In fact, it's becoming all too common for manufacturers as they go global. Fortunately for Grace, the mistake was easily corrected (Eraser Man is now tan instead of pink and employees in China are asked to "simplify" or "reduce" rather than erase). But other manufacturers worldwide can face much more serious consequences when they don't prepare for the varying customs and workplace practices of their foreign operations. The potential fallout includes trust issues between employees at home and abroad, along with safety and quality standards that don't quite match up with those within domestic operations. Multinational companies also encounter workforces that place different values on workplace benefits. For instance, in parts of Asia employers face increasing demands from workers that can make attracting and retaining talent a challenge, according to an IBM report released in October. According to Big Blue's Global Human Capital Study 2008, 46% of human resource executives surveyed in the Asia Pacific region (excluding Japan) say compensation is a key driver for attracting candidates, compared with 33% worldwide. At the same time, existing employees in this region expect more career opportunities than in other parts of the world, with53% of respondents listing upward mobility as critical for retention versus 43% globally.'Embarrass the Leader’The good news for manufacturers is this desire to learn represents eager, hard-working employees who give multinationals a chance to nurture homegrown talent in those countries. The challenge is identifying those workers, since local mores often hinder open communication. Guardian Industries Corp., an Auburn Hills, Mich.-based glass products manufacturer with more than 19,000 employees in 21 countries, found this out when it first entered Luxembourg, says Russell Ebeid, president of the Guardian Glass group. "People were not used to singular responsibility," he says. "They had always been told what to do."Getting employees to accept leadership roles required a little coaxing and encouragement, Ebeid says. They also needed reassurance that mistakes were part of the learning process. "Once they found out that they could try things and not get hit over the head, then they started feeling more comfortable, and slowly they began to feel like it was their operation and not part of a big multinational company," Ebeid relates.He also says some cultures are more comfortable solving problems on their own instead of contacting someone from a different country for help. For W.R. Grace, such stubbornness can be downright dangerous. The company stresses to employees that a safe working environment is dependent upon them reporting incidents. But that's easier said than done in some regions, according to Piergrossi. "In a lot of Asian cultures it's very hard for an employee to do something that could in one way embarrass the leader, and we needed to train our leaders to encourage this form of reporting -- [that] it wasn't something personal; it was something we needed to do to make the place better."Safety also is a major concern for $11 billion paints and sealants manufacturer PPG Industries Inc. Like W.R. Grace, PPG employees handle chemicals that require special care. That means in developing countries where safety standards may be lacking, PPG must provide extra training (approximately 20% more in Asia Pacific) and be more vigilant, says Viktor Sekmakas, PPG's vice president of coatings and managing director for Asia Pacific.Onsite contractors require the most attention, according to Sekmakas. "That's where you really have to be careful because their standards aren't quite the same as ours, so we have people watching them all the time to make sure they operate in a safe way," he says.The same holds true for product safety. The spate of recalled Chinese-made products over the past summer has resulted in heightened public scrutiny over foreign workplace practices. In China, PPG tests materials coming in from lesser-known suppliers and conducts audits several times each year of all its vendors to ensure they're following quality procedures, Sekmakas says.Localize, Localize, LocalizeWhile PPG provides direction for their foreign workforces, each regional operation has some autonomy in their decision-making processes. Similarly, Guardian strives to "nationalize" each foreign plant as quickly as possible, says Chuck Croskey, Guardian group vice president and managing director for Asia-Pacific and Mideast-Asia. In other words, the company trains the local workforce to run each facility within three years of startup. Otherwise, communication disconnects can make relaying critical information challenging. "Language barriers, voice inflections and hand gestures all have certain meanings that are very important," Croskey observes.But here's the rub: Low-skilled workforces require intense training. Guardian has addressed the skilled-worker shortage in certain foreign markets by establishing a school along with a housing colony to develop local talent. Students pay tuition to attend the school, but a company employee who has been employed for a year can receive a full year of paid tuition rather than a cash bonus. The employee is allowed to pass that tuition on to any family member or friend. The Indian culture places a high value on their children's future, so such generosity often earns employees a great deal of respect within their community, Croskey says.PPG's learning environment consists of onsite and online training courses. The virtual academy helps the company transfer knowledge from its mature regions to developing countries, says Debra Simeone, manager of blended learning for corporate human resources at PPG. The online learning center offers courses ranging from product training to leadership and ethics. It also features bulletin boards, message boards and chat rooms where employees can communicate with each other -- all functions that help PPG's offshore workforces understand the company's strategy, standards and protocols for each respective region.A 'United Nations Approach'A knowledgeable, local workforce helps foreign workforces operate more smoothly at home, but what happens when they need to collaborate with employees outside their regions? Guardian has created a companywide "United Nations" of sorts that includes approximately 100 company representatives from each of its regions who meet twice a year. The meetings give employees an opportunity to discuss trends, new ideas and what's happening in their markets.W.R. Grace has a similar program in place consisting of 25 people from each of its worldwide operations who serve as an advisory board to the CEO and his executive team. The council, which is relatively new, has one meeting under its belt and has already recommended that the executive team participate in a leadership training program that focuses on how body language and other behaviors impact employee perceptions, according to Piergrossi.These global get-togethers can boost morale and reduce the likelihood of conflicts or tension between employees from different cultures, which was an issue at the Newnan, Ga., operations of German-based Grenzebach. The maker of production equipment for the glass andconstruction materials industry faced a contentious situation when a German worker visited the plant to provide assistance.Germans tend to be direct in their communications and can appear to be brusque or even rude to Americans, explains Manuela Franke, Grenzebach's human resources manager. So when the expatriate barked instructions to the U.S. workers, the employees didn't feel respected. The miscommunication resulted in divisions between U.S. and German employees, says Daniel Highway, the Newnan operations manager. "In the translation the statements or the sentences come out a lot stronger and instead of building as a team, then you start building up walls," he notes, "but we've been really successful at breaking those down."The company is helping to break down those walls through an exchange program in which workers from Germany spend time in the United States and vice versa. The program is designed to build camaraderie by incorporating offsite activities for the out-of-town guests. For instance, when U.S. employees visited Germany this past summer the host employees gave their foreign co-workers a tour of the area. "They showed them around in Germany so they could understand the culture a little bit more and get a feeling for how Germans live," Franke says.Maybe the real U.N. should be taking notes.。

Case 1Question 1●General principles of the law of delictThe 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”. Delict is also known as the law of (ivi)wrongs‟ and applies to much of the same area of law as the English law of …tort‟.General principles of delictual liability is that 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; caused by culpa on the part of the wrongdoer.Two exceptions will be discussed is that vicarious liability, where the defender is liable for the actions of another; and strict liability, where liability can arise without fault through statutory provision. 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. Vicarious liability is an example of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employee and the employer.●Negligence and the duty of careNegligence is the most common delict and an action in delict arise where harm is caused carelessly or inadvertently. The law of negligence has developed to protect individuals from physical harm to the person and to property. Financial interests are only protected where the financial loss is consequential to the harm of the person or property. For a claim to arise in negligence, the following points must be considered: duty of care owed; breach of the duty of care; caused and causation and remote. And this is judged on what the reasonable man would or would not have done had he been in the defender‟s position to eliminate the risk which in the exercise of his reasonable foresee ability he had identified. In the case of Scott V London and St Katherine Dock Co (1861). Six bags of sugar fell on a custom house officer as he was passing under a warehouse loading bay.The bag were being lowered to the ground by a crane and there was no explanation for the accident. In the absence of an explanation the presumption was that the accident arose from the defender‟s negligence. And in the case of Smith v Leech Brain and Co Ltd (1961), a man was burnt on his lip by a splash of molten metal and his employer was held negligent in not providing adequate protection for the employee. This led to cancer although there was already a premalignant condition in his ;op tissue. The employers were held liable for his subsequent death.Question 2●Standard of careThe standard of care varies according to the particular circumstances, in this case Mrs McGregor was seriously injured in a car crash because her brakesfailed.Danny feels dreadful about this he should have spent more time working on Mrs McGregor‟s car. In the case of Hughes v Lord Advocate(1963) and Muir v Glasgow Corporation illustrates this point.●Breach of the duty of care◆Contributory negligence. Where the defender has been negligent but thepursuer‟s actions have partly contributed. The burden of proof is with thedefender. (Sayer V. Harlow urban Council (1958).◆Consent and volenti nofit injuria (one consenting no wrong can be done).When the pursuer freely and voluntarily with full knowledge of the riskinvolved agrees to take the risk no delict (Morris V. Murray (1991)).◆Damnum fatale. An act of God and would be outside the control of man.Example is cyclone, hurricane, and earthquake.In this case Danny feels dreadful about this he have spent more time working on Mrs McGregor‟s car. After listening to Danny‟s worries, Tom, the garage owner, has reassured him that he did everything that could be expected of a reasonably competent mechanic.Case 2Question 1●Liability applies to the keeper of an animalThe duty of care:There 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. There is a breach of the duty of care. This indged on what the reasonable man would or would not have done had he been in the defender’s position to eliminate the risk he had defined. For example, the provision of the Health&Safety At work Act 1974.The burden of proof:The burden of proof is the obligation on a party to establish the facts in issue in a case to the required degree of certainty (the standard of proof) in order to prove their case. There is a rule of evidence known as res ipsa loquitur or the …facts speak for themselves‟ and here the burden of proof shifts to the defender. There are three conditions necessary for res ipsa loquitur to apply: the offending …thing‟must have been under the control or management of the defender or his employees such accidents do not normally happen where due care is taken there is an absence of explanation for the accident.Vicarious (in place of another) Liability: Someone can be liable for another‟s delictual act. This can come as a result of agency, partnership and employment.Liability is transferred to the person benefiting or gaining by the actions of the wrongdoer. Vicarious Liability of the employer for his employee‟s Actions Vicarious liability is an example of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employee and the employer. To bring an action against the employer the pursuer must prove: That the wrongdoer was an employee of thedefender, and that the delict (wrongful act) was committed within the scope or course of his employment. If the employer is sued and found liable, then the insurance company can sue the employee for the amount that has been paid in damages which is unusual unless conduct has been willful, it is illustrated by the case of Lister V Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co (1957).Strict liability: The liability Where can arise without fault through statutory provision.The principle of no liability for pure economic loss has been qualified by some development in case law where there is financial loss caused by negligent misstatement and where financial loss is caused by careless acts in limited circumstances. In the case of Hedley Byrne & Co v Heller & Pareners(1964)In the case of Smith v Eric Bush (1989), the House of Lords held that such disclaimers could not exclude the liability of surveyor for negligent report as under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977it was not fair or reasonable to expect the purchaser to take the risk for losses arising form the incompetence of a surveyor.Question 2●DefencesThe following defences are available when concerned with liability in relation to both dangerous and non-dangerous species:Contributory NegligenceWhere the damage caused is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering itis said to be a defence under Section 5 of the Animals Act 1971.ViolentV oluntary assumption of the risk is a defence under Section 5 of the AnimalsAct 1971 but not if this risk is ordinarily incidental to that personsemployment. An example of this would be someone working as a lion tamersassistant.TrespasserUnder Section 5 of the Animals Act 1971 there will be no liability where thekeeper can prove that the animal was not deliberately kept to protect personsor property from trespassers of if it was that this protection was notunreasonable.In the case, the employer can use contributory negligence, consent and volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale. In the case of Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co (1957), and in the case of Morris v Murray (1991),The defence of volenti was successful.Question 3Careless ActsThis is also known as the junior books liability after the leading case of Junior Books v V eitchi & Co(1982). That pure economic loss is generally irrecoverable, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as negligent misstatement or a special relationship akin to contract as in junior book. In addition, it should be noted that the junior book decision has been criticlsed in many subsequent court cases and should be read with caution.Case 3Question 1There are various defences available to a claim in delict and specifically covers the following: contributory negligence; consent and volenti non fit injuria; damnum fatale; immunity and prescription.There are many defenses available to be argued by a defender to an action. For example, defender could claim a defense on point of low. The defender could also claim that the pursuer‟s case was factually incorrect, i.e. A defense on point of fact.In the case(a), the Rap can use contributory negligence, consent and volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale. In the case (b), the Margaret can use contributory negligence. In the case (c), He wants to use immunity to escape his liability.Question 2In the case(a), Jamesie intends to sue Rab for the injuries that he suffered as a result of his dangerous driving. the Rap can use contributory negligence, consent and volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale to escape liability.In the case (b), Margaret attempted to apply the brakes as quickly as possible, but the bus driver was much slower to react, the defender is the bus driver, but his vehicle was unable to stop in time so the bus collided head on with Margaret‟s car. It is unexpected. At the same time, Margaret was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the collision, it is Margaret‟s negligence. So the defender coule use contributory negligence to escape liability.In the case (c), obviously, the Knockbuckle players, lost his temper脾气and kicked Gavin in the face during a scrum and he makes a excuse for this called that accidents will happen and anyone who plays the game knows this only too well. He wants to use immunity to escape his liability.Question3In the case(a), Jamesie got to the car and screamed at Rab to drive the car as fast as he could, so Jamesie has liability on the subsequent car crash, and in the case, we could find that Rab lost control of the vehicle, it is damnum fatale. Thus, Rap mightsuccessfully by use contributory negligence, volenti non fit injuria and damnum fatale to escape liability.In the case (b), the defender is the bus driver, he had out of control of his vehicle when the accident happened, so the bus collided head on with Margaret‟s car. It is unexpected. At the same time, Margaret was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the collision, it is Margaret‟s negligence. So the defender coule use contributory negligence to escape liability successfully.In the case (c), the Knockbuckle players, lost his temper and kicked Gavin in the face during a scrum and he makes a excuse for this called that accidents will happen and anyone who plays the game knows this. It is an intentional act, he wants to use immunity to escape his liability. I think It is chicanery and it never would have succeed.。

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。

Outcome 1 Case 11.Satisfactory Quality: In English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensurethat 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 bona fide and the seller was bound to sell goods which were worthy of the price.There are factors that are listed in section 14(2b) of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases, Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied: Appearance and finish; Freedom from minor defects; Safety and;Durability; Thomson v J Sears& CO (1926)2.No, this contract between maggie and seller.The seller has to return both the purchase price and compensate for any damage which the defective goods may have caused.，The provisions of SOGA 1979 only apply to the buyer, not to any other party, for example a person who received the goods as a gift, has no claim against the seller under the Act.3.Section 20 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 states that any attempt to exclude orrestrict the seller’s liability for breach of Section 12 is void.The contract it must be “incorporated”or form part of the contract .consumer contracts for the supply of goods and services are covered by act, as well as contracts of employment and apprenticeship. beach of any duty to take reasonable care exercise reasonable skill arising from the express implied terms of a contract. Any attempt to exclude liability for death or personal injury arising from breach of any of the above duties is void,4. Section 16 UCTA 1977 covers attempts to exclude or restrict liability in relation to breach of duty in contracts or non-contractual notices. Breach of duty broadly covers the following.Any attempt exclude liability for other loss or damage arising from breach of any of the above duties is allowed only to the extent that it is ‘fair and reasonable’Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999.the regulations apply more widely than UCTA 1977 and can apply to the following situations: terms regarding termination of the contract and adequate notice; terms regarding delivery dates; terms allowing the supplier to increase charges without negotiation.Section 20 UCTA 1977, as seen in topic 1, covers attempts to exclude or restrict liability in relation to implied terms in SOGA 1979. As previously discussed any such clauses are void in a consumer contract.5. Rejection of the goods and Damages. Where the seller is in breach of any terms in a contract, the buyer shall be entitled to claim damages, and if the breach is material to treat the contract as repudiated and reject the goods.By section 15b (2) SOGA 1979 where the contract is a consumer contract, a breach of the terms implied terms’ covered in Topic 1 will be regarded as a material breach. This will allow the consumer to reject the goods and claim damages. Additional Rights of Buyers in Consumer Contracts. It has part 5a to SOGA1979 making provision for additional remedies for buyers in consumer contracts where the goods for not conform to the contract at the time of delivery.The remedies available under section 48 SOGA 1979 are:Repairing or replacement of goods; Reduction in price; Rescission of the contract.Case 21. Consumer Credit& The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974)The CCA 1974 controls ‘ regulated agreements’ which are defined in Section 189 of the ACT as a consumer credit agreement ,or consumer hire agreement, other than an exempt agreement. A consumer credit agreement is the creditor supplies the debtor with credit not exceeding 25,000. This 25,000 limit only applies to amount of credit advanced.2. There are two main categories of credit transaction or regulated agreement. Debtor-creditor- supplier’s agreement. 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 against the supplier known as ‘connected lender liability’. The consumer would therefore choose to claim against either the creditor or the supplier.3. Protected Goods under a Hire Purchase or a Conditional Sale Agreement. In a hire –purchase or conditional sale agreement, ownership of the goods remains with the creditor until the debtor makes the last payment. Under common law provisions creditors could repossess the goods where the debtor is in default of obligations. Ownership of goods does not pass until the last payment has been made. A credit sale agreement is one where the purchase price is payable in five of more installments. But it is not a conditional sale agreement. Ownership of the goods would pass immediately to the buyer.4. Right to cancel the agreement. The debtor has the right to cancel within the ‘cooling off” period: there has been an oral selling of the agreement to the debtor; and the agreement has been signed by the debtor off trade premises. Cancellation of a regulated agreement also cancels a linked transaction, for example, where there is debtor-creditor-supplier agreement.5. The CCA 1974 introduced a licensing system to over all actives relating to credit. Applications for licences are made to the Director General and currently last for five years. It is a criminal offence to provide credit without a licence. Under Section 21 and 147 of the CCA 1974, licences are required for consumer credit, consumer hire and ‘ancillary credit businesses’Case 3 1. The topic deals with the statutory provisions to protect consumers provided for in The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (TDA 1968).The TDA 1968 has a role in protecting consumers of goods and services through the criminal law. The local trading standards department are given various powers to carry out their duties under the Act and may make test purchases, enter premises at all reasonable hours, if they have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, require production of books and documents and seize goods, enter premises after obtaining a Warrant from a Sheriff of Justice of the Peace. Strict liability applies to these offences, meaning that a person acting in his course of a trade or business can commit an offence without intending to do so.2. Defenses available for a section 1 or section 14 offence. Onus is on the accused to establish the defense known as due diligence. The accused must establish two things under section 24;(1)that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or reliance on information suppliedto him/her, or the act of someone else, or an accident or some other cause beyond his /her control; And(2)that he/she took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid thecommission of such an offence by himself/herself or any person under his/her control.If the accused is attempting to prove that he/she relied on the actions of someone else, or information supplied by someone else then he/she must give written notice to the prosecution identifying the other person at least seven days before the date of the hearing.Ford v Guild (1990).。

商务沟通O u t c o m e1-总汇(总5页)--本页仅作为文档封面，使用时请直接删除即可----内页可以根据需求调整合适字体及大小--商务沟通 Lesson 1～3:Practical approaches needed for successful communication in the workplaceof this Unit:Analyse complex written business informationProduce complex written business documentsOrganise and participate in a formal meetingCommunication :Any communication that uses words to convey meaning. Speaking and writing are both forms of verbal communication.Communication:Involvement of sending messages through body language, gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice, and other indicators of meaning that don't involve the use of spoken or written language.5.Analysis :The process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.Examining in detailEvaluating the words, sentences and paragraphs:To determine the value of something or to appraise it.8.Evaluation of business documents:Making a judgement about how effective the document is in achieving what the writer set out to do.:A fact is a piece of information that people generally agree is true.:An Opinion is one point of view among many:The forms of language used to refer to particular subject matter.:The choice of words used to convey a messageAccurate denotation can make writing easierAppropriate connotations convey the attitude you wantThe choice of words used to convey a messageFormal words (official and proper)Respectful words (polite)Concise words (short and simple)Apposite wordsThe way that words are used to convey a messageContracted words are usually not used in formal business writingCareful writers aim for concise writingThe way that words are used to convey a messageCareful writers aim for elegant writingThe way that words are used to convey a messageMeanings should be clear and unambiguousThe way that words are used to convey a messagePunctuation and syntax should be correct商务沟通Types of writing一、适用范围及目的To present information. email, report, proposal, articleTo inform a colleague within organisation. memo, email, minutes of meetingTo inform a customer / supplier outside of organisationemail, letter, minutes of meeting, faxTo maintain written evidence. minutes of meeting, letter, reportTo sell products or services. Email, letter, advertisingTo make application. Email, letter, proposalTo assure quality of product or service. Report, proposal, specificationTo thank / complaint. Email, letter, report, fax二、具体详解1.Memos(Memoranda)Purpose：A short note / message used within an organisationConventions（惯例）：Containing of ‘Memo’ at the topNormally, To, From, Subject and Date are used as subheadings（副标题）Purpose：Used within / outside an organisation and between individuals（个人） Conventions：Less accepted conventions because of newnessTo, From, Subject filledNo formal greeting required sometimesGenerally informal and less strictLettersPurpose：Used between organisation and individualsConventions：Headed notepaper usedRecipient’s name on the left hand sideFormal opening greeting or salutationText in short paragraphsMessage in respectful toneFormal closing greetingPrinted sender’s name underneath the signatureLeft alignment without indentsNo commas in address, opening and closing greetings‘Yours sincerely’ responding to a named recipient, and ‘Yours faithfully’ to an unknown recipient4.Notice of MeetingPurpose:a notice sent out in advance to inform people who are invited to the meeting.Conventions：The name of the committee/working party/group/person holding the meeting Details of the people involvedThe date of the meetingThe time of the meetingThe venue that the meeting will be held inThe purpose of the meeting and/or and invitation to submit agenda items Optionally, any special requests5.AgendaPurpose:a list of things that the members of the meeting will discuss.Conventions：The word AgendaName of the organisation/committee/group or person calling the meetingThe date and time of the meetingThe venue of the meetingThe following agenda items:Apologies, . the names of those absentMinutes of the last meetingMatters arisingThe topics of the meetingAny other businessDate and time of next meeting6.MinutesPurpose:an essential part of a meeting though it involves time and expense even after the meeting has ended.Conventions：The name of the meetingWhere and when the meeting took placePresent, . the names of the participantsApologiesMinutes of the previous meetingItems on the agendaExtraordinary items (if any)Any Other BusinessDate and time of next meeting.7.ReportPurpose:Used in the workplace to investigate a problem or issueConventions:Introduction section, outlining the purposeProcedures section, explaining the steps taken to gather informationFindings section, presenting the informationConclusions section, highlighting the implications of findings Recommendations section, outlining the proposed courses of actionVarious appendices might be attached as supportWritten in the third person, mainly passiveMay contain graphics, charts, pictures and tables8.FaxesPurpose:Usually outside an organisation and between individualsTo confirm or arrange?a business transactionSometimes as a temporary duplication of a document if sending the document takes timeConventions:‘Fax’ at the topTo, From, Date and Subject lines, and also with two or more additional lines, such as Attn. (Attention) and Pages.商务沟通Be shorter (1/3 – 1/2) than the originalShow the links between various parts of the original textContain the main points and the main supporting detailsMaintain the original meaningDo not mislead readersDo not include summary writer’s own opinion:Single words, short phrases, or complete sentences that indicate the topic of the text. Headlines should be .Each font can be in several sizes and in several styles.Emphasised fonts:Bold---加粗Italics---斜体Underlines---下划线youtHeadline and fontsMarginsSpacingParagraphsLines5.StructureTo present information in an appropriate order:Being determined by the route taken by information as it passes through an organisation.Reflecting the stages of a manufacturing process.。

Business Contractual RelationshipsOutcome 2 and 3Candidate Name:Grade and Class:1.Yes. It is aless farorable. The Jeff can be protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010.In the case, the Jeff has worked in Mullan Enterprises Ltd for six years, Mr. Murray tells Jeff that he will be moved into another department which means Jeff was controlled by the company, and this is the control test. So Jeff is recognized as an employee, and he can be protected by the Employment Rights Act 1996. In this law, the employee has the right to obtain written terms and document called a contract of employment of terms so that the employee cannot be unfair dismissed.Then the disabled person is defined as a person who has substantial physical or mental disability cannot be competent for routine work. In this case, Jeff was suffering from MS, a degenerative disease which will affect his mobility in the workplace, because of his disease; he was told that he will be moved to another department. MS is a long-term and irreversible disease, so Jeff can be defined as a disabled person. Disabled people are protected against unfavorable treatment and failure by the employ or to adjust workplace reasonable for disabled people. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 gives disabled people rights in employment and other areas. However, Jeff worked on the fifth floor, and Mr. Murray did not adjust his workplace so he failed to meet the requirement of disabled person and went against the Disabled Discrimination Act 1996.At last the Equality Act 2010 can ensure the equality of chances and protect special group of people. It can also make sure these people are not worried about being unfairly treated even if the employer does not have discrimination act, he/she needs to be aware of these. In this case, Mr. Murray said that Jeff is probably not going to be much use to the company and want to move him to another department which can be considered as unfair treatment, and Jeff’s dignity has been broken. So Mr. Murray went against the Equality Act 2010.2. There are two types discrimination. Direct discrimination is because of the specialnature of some people to give unfair treatment. One person discriminates another person because of difference between them. Indirect discrimination is not a direct difference. But the difference is in the setting of a certain standard to make some people lose their chance. It looks like everyone is equal, but the standard is unreasonable. In the case. Mr. Murray wants to move Jeff to another department because of his disease, Mr. Murray thought that he is no longer useful to the company which harms Jeff’s confidence and Jeff was treated differently from others. Through this can be judged by direct discrimination. When Mr. Murray know Jeff’s disease, he did not make any adjustment for him which will be considered as discrimination treatment and went against the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.3. (2) Julia can be dismissed fairly. By the Supreme Court found that the element of control that employer can exercise over the employee to determine the relationship between them. Firstly, Julia has a written statement of employment with the company. Secondly, Julia has been an employee in the company for 9 years and she is expected to complete a set amount of hours every week which means she is controlled by the company, this is the control test. Thirdly, her company deals with her tax deductions, this is fiscal test, the fiscal test can decide whether the person run business on his/her own account/ personal account or accounts used in the process of work in Hall v Lorner(1992).According to section 98 the Employment Rights Act 1996, a reason is related to an employee’s conduct. Dismissal: a valid reason that they can justify are reasonably in the circumstance. In this case, Julia has worked for 9 years, her ability is good. However, she punched employees in the workplace when training them which will be very serious. In the Act, the employer dismisses an employee because employee has broken the terms of employee’s employment. So Julia can be dismissed. However, the employer should follow a fair disciplinary procedure before dismissing and give employee chance to explain and appeal. Before Julia was fired, she should be told and warned the bad behavior and the employer should tell the employee how serious the behavior was and show the damage to her.4.In the case, the Tom is an accounting in Company E. And in the company he often makes mistakes in these two years. He lead to the lots of financial loss of the company with he provides the false financial information. So the Company E provided Tom two months accounting training. But after training, Tom’s work was bad too. Not long ago, a staff reported the manager that tom hided drugs in the office. The manager found evidence after work. Company E pointed out that Tom’s action damages company’s image. Tom should be dismissed because of his conduct. Tom broke the terms of employee’s employment.In addition, Tom is lack ability to his work, he cannot do accounting, So it is reasonable to dismiss Tom.5.In the case, the Mary is pregnant. She applies for three months of maternity leave. But the company doesn’t approve. If she insists on the maternity leave that the manager need dismiss her. And at the same time the company need to reduce workforce of employees. Mary is selected to redundancy because she is pregnant. Employer wants to dismiss Mary because of maternity leave.But the behavior breaches statutory employment rights. So it belongs to automatically dismissal. Mary is selected because of pregnant, and this also can be classed as an unfair dismissal.。