Caveat Emptor Sales of Good Act Implied Terms Essay

Enforceable contract Peter v. Don. Peter will have an enforceable contract with Don if he can show that all the required elements of a contract are present. If there is a contract between the two then it will be governed by the common law requirements of an enforceable contract instead of the Uniformed Commercial Code, which would be used if their agreement had involved the sale of goods. In order for a contract to be formed between Peter and Don the two must react mutual consent Mutual consent can generally be formed through the form of an (A) offer and (B) acceptance. An additional requirement for both parties to show (C) consideration is also

Rule : : Contract formation requires mutual assent (offer and acceptance), consideration, and no viable defenses to contract formation.

Consumer Fraud happens when customers are enticed to buy a product that is being sold and are unaware the person behind this is deceiving them. Unfortunately, retailers and manufacturer’s find ways they can make a quick buck while taking short cuts even if harms the consumer. One of the issues lies with auto-repairs, there was an investigative reporter that went to many different auto repair shops to see if they would tell him that certain things needed to be fixed on the car. What the autoshop’s didn’t know is that the car was in excellent condition. He was able to catch them being dishonest and charging him for things that didn’t need to be done. Beware of telemarketing fraud because that call might just cost you a pretty penny. Telemarketers like to put people on the spot and before you know it you have bought a product for a larger amount of money than it is worth. They could also try to con you into investing money in foreign currency for half the cost but then your money is never invested but stolen. False advertisement is another ploy to make money by giving the consumer the lesser product. For instance, once case for Beech-Nut Corporation baby food products advertised a juice as 100% fruit juice with no sugar added when in fact it didn’t even contain apple juice. Another form of false advertisement is the bait and switch which is

Pat was very frustrated because she wanted to purchase a home but lacked the funds or credit to do so even though Pat was expecting shortly to receive a one-half million dollar final installment payment for some land she sold several years earlier. Dan knew that Pat was very interested in purchasing a home and approached Pat with a proposal to assist Pat in buying a home. Dan told Pat that he would help Pat with the financing. After finding the home she wanted to buy for $250,000, Dan and Pat orally agreed that Dan would purchase the home and "when you come up with the money, I (Dan) will sell it to you (Pat) for $250,000 plus a fair commission to be determined."

Lord Denning holds the opinion that “…it is a mistake to think that all contracts can be analyzed into the form of offer and acceptance…” He gives his support of the statement above and echoes these sentiments in the case of Butler v. Ex-Cell-O Corporation (England) Ltd (1979). He believes that the “…better way is to look at all the documents passing between the parties and glean from them or from the conduct of the

A misrepresentation is a statement or a claim made by one to another that can either be misleading or false. This can happen not only is written contracts or contracts but also verbally, it can be as simple as when a person is talking to another and has provided them with information that is incorrect. For a business it is illegal or unlawful to be involved or make any statements in matters that can be mislead or misinformed or is likely to be mislead or misinformed to its customers or other businesses. The following can be classified as being misleading, the failure to disclose relevant information, predictions, opinions and promises. The conducts for the misleading or miss informing whether by action or statement includes advertising, any form of statements, promotions, quotations and by any representation made by a person.2 A form of misleading information or deceptiveness can be in the form

In my younger years, I held a few gym memberships to which I could not easily afford nor used. A car salesperson that pushed for the sale put me into a car for which I did not enjoy or want. He received a commission; I received buyer’s remorse. Fortunately, I’ve learned from these mistakes. Unfortunately, it makes me a bit more cynical. At the expense of missing out on a great deal, I would rather be skeptical when receiving unsolicited offers with terms that are too good to be true.

I went to buy a pair of shows at Macy’s sometime in 2014. The company had indicated on its website that the shoes were discounted at 60 percent off the original price. The shoes cost me $29.99.

Say that a party goes to buy a car and is told it is in perfect condition everything interior and exterior worked and it had been reliable for the owner for years. Well the party purchases the vehicle and everything did work, except my air conditioner. The seller hadn’t bothered to check the AC, but last he knew it worked. In this case, he believed what he was saying was fact and neglected to check his facts. For this to be fraudulent misrepresentation the seller would have had to have known the vehicle wasn’t in perfect condition and the buyer relied on the information to make the purchase. For it to be puffery the truck would have had to have been in perfect condition and the seller not like but, talk up the vehicle for instance saying it’s the cheapest and toughest vehicle on the market. The difference between each of these examples is very important for business owners to know, so they can protect themselves. It is also very important for them to understand that not knowing is not a valid excuse and can get them in unintentional

The doctrine of consideration is one of the most established doctrines within the common law of contract. This essay will discuss the impact of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989] EWCA Civ 5 on the doctrine of consideration. It will shed light on the rules of consideration, ways to avoid consideration, application of the rules in the specific circumstance of performance of an existing duty in cases. Evidently an alteration to the rules and practices would be displayed. Courts today need to make a distinction between everyday social agreements and legally binding contracts, this is where the doctrine of consideration manifests. This case introduces the practical benefit rule needed for consideration however, this case did not alter set legislation formed from the case Stilk v Myric[1809]. As it was held in the Court of Appeal and not seen or upheld by the House of Lords.

other in order to form a contract, the value of the consideration need not be

A Contract requires several elements in order to be considered enforceable. However for the purpose of this essay we would explore one of these elements in order to effectively understand the controversial cases of Williams v Roffey Brothers and Nicholls (contractors) Ltd (1990) and Stilk v Myrick (1804). Before going any further one should briefly understand the doctrine of Consideration. Despite the vast amount of content written, the doctrine of consideration is still to this day unclear due to the inconsistency of the courts and its application of necessary rules. Consideration refers to that which the law deems as valuable in that the promisor receives from the promise that which was promised. In other words, it is the exchange of something of value between the parties in a contract. One should be mindful that in English law, every promise may not be legally enforceable; it requires the court to distinguish between are enforceable and non-enforceable obligations. This brings us to the controversial cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v the Roffery brothers. Many argue that that the case of Williams was wrongly decided leading to impairments in the rule initially established in Stilk v Myrick. This essay seek to analyse and critique the cases of Stilk v Myrick and Williams v Roffey Brothers and also highlight whether or not the new rule of Practical benefit lead to serious impairments in later cases.

If parties enter into a contract that is reflective or derives from a mistake, under common law the contract may be void or voidable. The basis of this decision depends on the type of mistake. Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson presented a unilateral mistake, in which only one party is mistaken, and in this case, a mistake as to the identity. The difficulty lies when judges must decide whether a contract is void or voidable, which will only protect one of the two arguably innocent parties, the original property owner or the bona fide purchaser. However, the approaches previously taken by the Courts have led to a lack of certainty and coherence in the interests of commercial transactions, and so the Shogun case presented an opportunity for clarification. I am going to raise the argument that the law of mistake is in need of a reform, by following Lord Millett’s proposal to no longer follow the cases Cundy v Lindsay and Ingram v Little. The reasoning within this argument will establish that the cases are inconsistent, lack support for third parties and fail to establish the authority of creditworthiness over identity in commercial contracts. Alternatively, the cases Phillips v Brooks and Lewis v Averay should be used to create a clear established line of case law which can be seen as a fair and practical approach towards mistake and protecting the bona fide purchaser.

Goods are sold by description where the purchaser is relying on the description the seller the seller is providing since he has not seen the goods.

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,