Case Study: The Case Of Bob And Sue

Brandon advised the store has had several incidents of receiving counterfeit money recently, so he checked the bill with a marker to see if it was real. He advised the marker revealed the bill to be counterfeit. Brandon advised he told the W/M the bill was a counterfeit and the W/M advised he had just been paid by his boss. Brandon stated the W/M requested the counterfeit bill back and he told the W/M he was going to call the police. Brandon advised the W/M then fled the store without the counterfeit bill.

Wally, business owner of Windy City Watches is located in downtown Chicago, IL. Business is booming and Wally needs to buy a large quantity of Rolek watches which sell for $50 apiece. He calls Randy Rolek, the wholesaler located in Milwaukee WI. They discuss terms on the phone for a while before coming to an agreement in which Wally offers to buy 100 watches for $25 each. Randy sends over an order form in which Wally states that he is agreeing to purchase watches from Randy for $25 each, but does not include the quantity in which he will buy. Randy sends 50 watches the following week with a note included stating that he has sent 50 watches and will send the other remaining 50 watches within a few days but includes the bill for the full

Starting from the beginning, the original post the sale, on November 1, Dr. Peters wanted to sell 850 tubes of toothpaste. In the sale ad it states "Write me if wanting to accept". Therefore, Sam did in fact put a check in the mail the same day, November 1. This is considered to be a part of the mailbox rule in which "an acceptance sent via the postal system or by courier is effective when sent" ((Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 127). Therefore, the acceptance of the sale is a contract between Sam and Dr. Peters. However, a written contract should have followed; as it states in the Statutes of Fraud that in order to be legally binding, sales dealing with "personal property of $500 or more" must "be in writing to be legally enforceable" (Luizzo, A., 2016, pg. 201). The two parties have entered into a valid and express contract.

Jan began a business called “Sunny Daze for Seniors Ltd.”, it “takes seniors on various trips and adventures in and around Edmonton.” She offers biking and canoeing, for both of which she had to rent the equipment. Jan entered two separate contracts, one for five bike from Wes Wheely, and the second for “5 ultra lite, fiberglass, tip resistant” canoes from Boat Stuff Inc., with the stipulation for both to be delivered May first.

The main issue of this case is to determine if Tricontinental may recover from PwC for negligence. In order to show negligence there must be four requirements that the plaintiff must show. The four requirements are: the defendant owed a duty of care, defendant breached that duty, breach of duty to care caused the plaintiff’s injury, and fourth that damages resulted.

7. Smith was approached by a man who introduced himself as Brown of Brown & Co. Brown was not known to Smith, but Smith asked Dun & Bradstreet for a credit report and obtained a very favorable report on Brown. He thereupon sold Brown some expensive gems and billed Brown & Co. ‘‘Brown’’ turned out to be a clever jewel thief, who later sold the gems to Brown & Co. for valuable consideration. Brown & Co. was unaware of ‘‘Brown’s’’ transaction with Smith. Can Smith successfully sue Brown & Co. for either the return of the gems or the price as billed to Brown & Co.?

The question this week deals with product liability, on the ground of strict liability. Bob was shopping at Carl’s Hardware store. One of Carl’s employee’s named Dan was using a nail gun and it fired without warning. A nail struck Bob in the leg. After checking the nail gun Carl discovers the manufacture, Eagle Tools, Inc., improperly assembled the tool. Bob files a suit against Eagle Tools, Inc, for product liability, on the ground of strict liability. The elements for action based on strict liability will be covered, who the court will like rule in favor of, and why in the following paragraphs.

A dealer sold a new car to Raymond Smith. The sales contract contained language expressly disclaiming liability for personal injuries caused as a result of defects in the car and limiting the remedy for breach of warranty to repair or replacement of the defective part. One month after purchasing the auto, Smith was seriously injured when the car veered off the road and into a ditch as a result of a defect in the steering mechanism of the car.

I will take a step by step analysis of the situation between Brenda and Albert. Firstly, I will advise Brenda and afterwards Albert. I will present the facts chronologically, as given to me, and advise on each issue individually with supporting evidence. I will refer to court cases and legislation such as Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sale of Goods Act 1979, The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. I will conclude by stating that despite the overwhelming evidence against Albert, supported by precedent court cases, there is no legal contract between the parties. I will provide Albert with legal advise assuming both business to business and business to consumer

As the case explains, economic changes are a big concern for Danaher’s success. The following topics will be analyzed in addressing those concerns: Business-Level Strategy, Corporate-Level Strategy, External Analysis, Internal Analysis, Recommendations.

In Rebecca & ‘Zorba’s’ Restaurant case, the main issue is whether negligence exists of the defendant? There are three prerequisites must be present before the tort of negligence can arise: a duty of care must be owed by one person to another; there must be a breach of that duty of care; and damage must have been suffered as a result of the breach of duty. (FoBL, 2005, p70) In addition, another element must be satisfied to prove negligence is the causation. This essay will analysis Rebecca v. ‘Zorba’s’ with these four issues.

Is Jack Sprat’s injury (ie severe allergic reaction) the result of the negligence of Smithy’s Fine Jewellers (Smithy’s) – the supplier, and can a clause excluding liability from negligence be enforced?

Kate is the owner of a successful business, selling women’s shoes. Her business is expanding fast and she wants to upgrade her business structure to a more appropriate one. What would be your recommendation to Kate and why? What are the factors that influence you with this advice?

Reached East tamaki director as regard this phone is not fully visable Unpractical without a console and presently suspended and rendered unusable hence

The following case study, is a female, Kelly, suffering from several problems with her family. She lives in a low income family and is the important role of family’s pillar. Since she is the oldest daughter and is a student at the same time, her parents fully expected her to take care of younger siblings. As a result, she did not perform well in DSE examination while her parents does not support her to continue study and urge her to gain a livelihood for family. Therefore, she has no idea on her decision making.