商务契约关系1hnd

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。

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。

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.。

HND商务沟通技巧报告商务沟通是指在商业环境中，通过口头或书面交流方式传递信息和想法，并达成共识的过程。

商务沟通技巧是指在商务交流过程中，能够有效传达信息和理解对方意图的技巧和方法。

在商务活动中，良好的沟通技巧对于建立良好的工作关系、解决问题和达到共同目标都起着至关重要的作用。

因此，本文将从以下几个方面介绍商务沟通的技巧和方法。

首先，要做到有效的商务沟通，语言表达能力是非常重要的一点。

在商务交流中，明确、简洁、准确地表达自己的意图是至关重要的。

避免使用过于专业化或技术性的词汇，让对方能够轻松理解你的意思。

另外，使用积极的语言和积极的措辞也是非常重要的。

积极的语言能够增强沟通双方的合作意愿，促进问题的解决和决策的达成。

其次，要注意非语言沟通的技巧。

在商务交流中，非语言沟通占据了很大的比重。

通过身体语言、面部表情、姿势等方式来传递信息和理解对方的意图。

例如，保持良好的姿势和身体语言，可以显示出自信和专业的形象，增强自己的说服力。

另外，还要注意听取对方的意见和观点，使用肢体语言和面部表情来展示自己的倾听和尊重。

此外，要注意语境的适应能力。

商务沟通技巧的另一个重要方面是能够适应不同的语境和情境。

在商务环境中，可能会面对不同的人群、不同国家或地区的文化差异。

因此，了解对方的文化和价值观念，并尊重这些差异是非常重要的。

在沟通中，注意使用适当的礼仪和俗语，避免冒犯对方。

另外，还要注意时间管理，确保沟通的效率和顺畅。

最后，建立良好的人际关系也是商务沟通的关键。

在商务环境中，人际关系的好坏直接影响着工作效果和合作氛围。

因此，要建立良好的人际关系，需要积极倾听对方的意见和需求，尊重对方的观点和决策，并及时回应对方的需求或问题。

另外，要保持积极的态度和负责任的工作态度，积极解决和处理冲突，建立互信和合作的关系。

在总结上述内容之后，可以得出商务沟通技巧的三个要点：良好的语言表达能力，准确的非语言沟通技巧和灵活的适应能力。

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

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.。

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。

HND项目专业课程设置一览表中文名称学分英文名称Busin ess Law: An In troducti on 商法导论 1Bus in ess Con tractual商务契约关系 1 Relati on shipsBus in ess Acco un ti ng 商务会计 2Economic Issues: Anintroduction 经济学导论 1Man agi ng People and人力和组织管理 2 Orga ni sati onsCommuni cati on: An alys ing andPrese nting Complex 商务沟通技巧 1Communi cati onIntern ati onal Market ing: An国际营销导论 1 in troducti onIn ternati on al Market ing: The Mix 国际市场组合 1in formati on and Communi cati on商务信息与通讯技术 2 Tech no logy in Bus in essBus in ess Culture and Strategy 商务文化与策略 2Global Trade and Bus in ess:记分单元1 1 Graded Unit 11Econo mics 1: Micro and Macro经济学I :微观与宏观理论及其应用 经济学U :世界经济 1 财政预算 1 国际惯例 1 出口援助资源 1 出口 2 财务报表分析 2 国际物流2 国际商业组织2Theory and Applicati onEcono mics 2: The World Economy Prepari ng Finan cial Forecasts Intern ati onal In stituti ons Sources of Export Assista nee Export ingFinancial Reporting and Analysis Intern ati onal LogisticsGlobal Bus in ess Orga ni sati onsGlobal Trade and Bus in ess:记分单元2 2Graded un it 21国际理财Finan cial Services课程设置英文名称Busin ess Acco untingBusin ess Law: An In troducti onCommuni cati on: An alys ing andPrese nting Complex Communi cati onCreati ng a Culture of CustomerCareEcono mic Issues: AnIn troducti onFinan cial Sector: AnIn troducti onIn formati on Tech no logy: Applicati ons Software 1 Man agi ng People and Orga ni sati onsMarket ing: An In troducti on中文名称学分商务会计 2 商法导论 1商务沟通技巧 1 客户服务文化构建 1 经济学导论 1 金融业导论 1信息技术应用软件1 I人力和组织管理 2 市场学导论1Personal Finan cial Services 个人理财服务保险原理 1记分单元1 1经济学U :世界经1济国际贸易融资2 金融服务业规范 1所得税1信息技术应用软件1n投资学 2 养老金规划 2 个人和商业信贷 2 财政预算1记分单元2 1记分单元31Prin ciples of In sura nee Finan cial Services: Group AwardGraded Unit 1Econo mics 2: The World EconomyFinancing Intern ati onal Trade Finan cial Services Regulatory Framework In come TaxIn formati on Tech no logy: Applicati ons Software 2 In vestme nt Pension Provisi onPersonal and Commercial Lending Prepari ng Finan cial Forecasts Finan cial Services: Group Award Graded Unit 2Finan cial Services: Group AwardGraded Un it 3。