BLAW 1320 Assignment 1

.docx

School

Vancouver Community College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1320

Subject

Law

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by chrstlljn

Report
Li 1 BLAW 1320 Chapter 7 Case #1 Facts: Each time Ziggy Sounds purchase order from David Jones Inc (DJI), DJI always creates a new contract that were based on their standard contract containing the same promises about the quality of their goods. The new owners of DJI wanted to make some necessary changes to the contract but they failed to communicate the matter to their employees. Ziggy Sounds received the goods with the usual standard contract from DJI with an additional phrase “This agreement is subject to formal contract.” Issue(s): Is there a contract made between Ziggy and DJI? Did DJI committed a breach of contract? Statement of Law: The general issue is that DJI added the additional phrase mentioned above which implies that DJI intents to not yet enter a formal legally binding contract with Ziggy Sounds. Argument: Ziggy Sounds and DJI previous owner used to have identical contracts every time a sale occurs. After the exchange of payment Ziggy found out they received defective new components. Ziggy’s argument to sue DJI is that they didn’t uphold the promise of quality goods. On the other hand, DJI’s argument is that there was no contract made. Decision: There is no bilateral contract established because DJI added the phrase discussed above which removes any liability from DJI. Ziggy should have read the contract thoroughly even they assume that it is the same contract as usual before the exchange of payments and goods. DJI should refund Ziggy for the defective goods but there will be no settlement to award Ziggy for breach of contract. Case #7 Facts: Mack Darin received a shipment of switchable knives and placed one of the knives in his store window with a small notice board saying, “Switchable Knives―$25 each.” Constable Booth arrested Mack Darin for violating Section 7 of the Prohibited Weapons Act. Issue(s): Did Mack Darin commit a crime against section 7 of the Prohibited Weapons Act? Was Mack Darin manufacturing, selling, or offering a sale of the knives?
Li 2 Statement of Law: The section 7 of the Prohibited Weapons Act says it is illegal to “manufacture, sell, rent, or offer for sale or rent. . . any knife . . . which has a blade that opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring, or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife.” Mack Darin was arrested and charged by Constable Booth because the knives in the display falls within the description. Argument: According to the contract law, the display on Mack Darin’s store window is an invitation to treat in exchange for money. The customer who will buy the product is the one who is making an offer. Mack Darin did not manufacture nor offer for sale the knives. Decision: Mack Darin’s display on his store window is not a violation of the act because it is an invitation to treat not an offer for sale. No customer has offered for buying so no sale happened. Darin did not manufacture the knives since he received it as a shipment. Therefore, Mack Darin did not commit a crime.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help