- Internal Code :
- Subject Code : LST2BSL
- University : La Trobe University
- Subject Name : Law
Introduction To Business Law And Ethics - Answer 1
Issues
Was it a term of the contract between Parker and Cruelty-Free Cobbler Supplies (CFCS) that the vegan leather would be all-natural?
Rule
Common Law
Application
A contract is framed when there is proper proposal, acceptance, consideration, consent, and agreement. Therefore, such a contract is considered to be a valid contract and acceptable by law. Parties entering into a contract should fulfil the essentials of the contract to make that contract valid. According to the common law, a contract can also be formed verbally if both the parties have consent on it and therefore has the proper offer and acceptance of the agreement, this shall make the verbal contract valid. In the present case, the contract between Parker and Cruelty-Free Cobbler Supplies that the vegan leather would be all-natural is a valid contract as the communication regarding the deal was done through an e-mail which is a one of a kind of written and documented contract. Parker owns and runs ethical shoe shops, named Ethletic Vegan Footwear, in Melbourne and Sydney. Parker sells ethically custom- made, cruelty-free and vegan shoes. Parker's clients are vegans and are looking for Vegan Shoes Supplies for the last 10 years. Therefore, the owner of Vegan Shoes Supplies has retired and has closed the business down. Parker finds another supplier named Cruelty- Free Cobbler Supplies and who seems to be the potential new supplier of vegan leather. Parker calls at CFCS to discuss the nature of the materials they sell and for this Parker speaks to Margaret. Parker tells Margret of his intention to order 20 square meters black vegan leather. Concerning the same Margret sends an e-mail later that afternoon to Parker regarding the amount and further details. In the case of Bressan v. Squires[1] it was held that the standard applies at whatever point the parties mulled over the post as a mode, regardless of whether only a potential or allowed method of correspondence.
Conclusion
By looking at the abovementioned details about the exchange of words it can be made clear that there was a valid contract between both the parties, as it was documented via e-mail and certain form was filled, also the form did not include about the specific instructions and details about the vegan leather. Furthermore, the contract between Parker and Cruelty-Free Cobbler Supplies that leather would be all-natural was not mentioned, as there were no details provided any party regarding the quality and making of the vegan leather.
Introduction To Business Law And Ethics - Answer 2
Issues
Was there an implied term in Sonia’s contract with Parker, that the shoes will be made with all-natural vegan leather with no synthetic material/ingredients involved?
Rule
Common Law
Application
In the light of the present facts and circumstances of the entire matter also in concern to Sonia, it was conveyed about that Sonia wanted vegan leather, Sonia did not mention about the specification of the vegan leather or the process of its production that it should not involve any synthetic material, whereas because of which Sonia wants to sue Parker for breach of contract. Furthermore, according to the common law, a contract includes proper offer, proposal, acceptance and consideration over anything, in the present matter, there was no exchange of words of vegan leather should not be or should not involve any kind of synthetic materials, on such basis, there was no information and acknowledgement about the specification of the vegan leather and based on this Sonia do not have any liberty to sue Parker for breach of contract. In the case of Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v. Pace[2] the court held that illusory promises and thoughts are not to be considered the part of contract proper information and knowledge should be involved while the exchange of words and framing of a contract. The facts stated tells that Sonia called Parker and threatened Parker to sue him. As because within a minute after wearing the shoes the skin on her feet broke out in painful red patched and blisters. Sonia is allergic to synthetic colouring, it turned out to be that synthetic tint CFCS use to colour the vegan leather has caused the reaction, but such information was not mentioned before to Parker.
Conclusion
As abovementioned, there was no such implied tern in Sonia's contract with Parker, that the shoes will be made with all-natural vegan leather with no synthetic material or any such ingredient involved. There was no such consideration or any promise concerning the quality of its production between the parties involved in this matter specifically, and as per the contract, the essentials should be fulfilled to make it a valid contract.
Introduction To Business Law And Ethics - Answer 3
Issues
Was the colour of the soles on the pair of George’s sneakers a condition or a warranty of the contract?
Rule
Common Law
Application
In the light of the matter concerning George and Parker, George visits the shop of Parker to place an order of a pair of men's sneakers. The discussion was done and details were provided by George which mentioned that George wants a white men's sneakers un size 10, with white rubber soles. Therefore, the order received by George had white men's sneaker size 10 and brown coloured rubber soles, which was against the order placed to Parker by George. Furthermore, George had the pair made to wear when he takes an interest in grass bowling alliance rivalries, as members must wear every single white shoe on the lawn. The colour of the soles on the pair of George's sneakers is not the conditions to a warranty of the contract, because the mistake was done on the part of the Parker, even though George provided the details of the making of the shoes yet Parker provided George with the white men's sneakers with brown rubber sole which had to be white as per the requirements of George. In the case of Brambles Holdings v. Bathhurst City Council[3] the court held that if the parties provide their consideration to each other to enter a certain contract or any terms and condition therefore, it is considered to be an implied condition over the parties. Parker after the matter of Sonia makes a sign up on the wall next to the counter where customers are served and were easily seen by the customers, which clearly stated that 'Ehtletic Vegan Footwear accept no responsibility for the breach of any warranty'. Warranty means that it is a written promise from the seller to the buyer to replace or repair the product that develops the fault within a particular period.
Conclusion
In the present matter, George specifically mentioned about the making of the shoes and yet the sole was in colour brown rather than white here in this particular situation conditions of warranty or specification of the sign mentioned by Parker shall not be included, the mistake has been done on the part of Parker. The matter can also be termed under the breach of contract.
Introduction To Business Law And Ethics - Answer 4
Issues
Is Parker still responsible for the soles on the pair of George’s sneakers being the wrong colour?
Rule
Common Law
Application
In the light of the mentioned facts and statement concerning the matter of George and Parker, George mentioned while discussing and providing details about the making and specification of the shoes which included that George wanted white men's sneaker size 10 and white rubber sole, and the product George received was not according to the details provided by him to Parker, as the product George received was white men sneakers with size 10 but the sole was not white and was brown even after informing and providing details of the product to be made. There was a breach of contract on the part of Parker as the promise and specification of the contract were not fulfilled by Parker. Parker is still liable and responsible for the soles on the pair of George's sneakers being wrong on colour.
The sign on the wall mentioned that ‘Ethletic Vegan Footwear accepts no responsibility for the breach of any warranty' and was read by George while placing the order, yet George trusted and gave it a chance and Parker breached the trust, duty of care, and the contract, therefore, shall be liable for the misconduct and not providing the said product even after discussion made with the party. In the case of Carr v. Berriman Pty Ltd[4] it was held that once offer and acceptance is done by both the parties it is considered to be a valid contract or both the parties agree to all the terms and conditions to be a valid contract. In the case of Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.[5]the court held that there was the valid offer as an offer was made, acceptance was done, proper communication was held in between the parties, therefore the plaintiff was entitled to the reward. In another case of Clarke v. Dunraven[6] the court held that there was consideration to enter the race and because of which the parties also entered into the contract with each other on the terms and conditions, therefore, the defendant shall pay for the mistakes done on his part.
Conclusion
In the present matter of George and Parker, the details were mentioned about the making of the shoes, yet the product was not up to the details and information provided by George to Parker. Therefore, Parker is liable for breach of contract and consideration against George.
Reference for Introduction To Business Law And Ethics
Legislation
Common Law
Cases
Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v. Pace (1988) 15 NSWLR 130
Brambles Holdings v. Bathhurst City Council Supreme Court of New South Wales, Court of Appeal [2001] NSWCA 61; 53 NSWL 153
Bressan v. Squires, Supreme Court of New South Wales [1974] 2 NSWLR 46
Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Court of Appeal [1893] 1 QB 256; [1892] EWCA Civ 1
Carr v. Berriman Pty Ltd [1953] HCA 31; (1953) 89 CLR 327
Clarke v. Dunraven [1897] AC 59
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help