Bus law assignment

SECTION A: Short Scenario

Instruction: Analyse the following scenarios and answer the questions that follow with reference to your understanding of business law. Cite case laws where necessary.

a)     N offered to sell his motor-bike to M for $1,000.00. M replied, "I will give you $900.00 for it." When N shook his head, M then produced $1,000.00 from his pocket, saying, "Here you are then, $1,000.00." N replied that he has changed his mind and that he does not want to sell

the motor-bike. Is N within his legal rights? State your reasons for your answers fully.

 (10 marks)

b)     D goes into a self-service store, takes a wire basket from the stack provided and then fills the basket with goods from the shelves. He is about to pay for the items when he discovers that he has forgotten to bring money with him. He therefore begins to replace the goods on the shelves. The store manager stops him, saying that he has bought these goods and must pay for them. Advise the manager.

 (10 marks)

c)     Eight years ago, C bought a painting from a dealer, D. D had described the painting as a genuine Picasso and C paid a high price accordingly. C has just discovered that the painting is not a Picasso and is almost worthless. There is no evidence that D's false statement was fraudulent. What steps would you advise C to take?

 (10 marks)

d)     Singtel signed a contract with Apple to buy 50,000 pieces of the iphone 5XXX, a special iPhone. Under the terms of contract, it is supposed to come with Lady Jaga (a popular celebrity) advertising the phone at Singtel concert in Singapore. Singtel signed a contract with Apple, and paid $1million to Apple. However, 2 days after that, Lady Jaga dies and there is no concert. Singtel loses $500,000 in sales as well as other unliquidated losses. Advise Singtel.

(10 marks)

[TOTAL MARKS – 40 marks]

SECTION B:

Instruction: Analyse the following cases and state the decision that you will take. Discuss the law concepts referred to and justify your points of view. Cite case laws where necessary.

The answers will be assessed based on relevance, academic content, reference to case law and structure of presentation.

Case Study 1: Statute of Frauds

Marko, a sporting goods retailer, speaks on the phone with Wholesaler about buying

500 footballs. After the conversation, Marko writes this message by hand: “Confi rming our

discussion—you will deliver to us ‘Pro Bowl’ model footballs—$45 per unit—arrival our store no

later than July 20 this year.” Marko signs and faxes the note to Wholesaler. Wholesaler reads the

fax but then gets an order from Lana for the same model football at $51 per unit. Wholesaler

never responds to Marko’s fax and sells his entire supply to Lana. Two weeks later, Marko is

forced to pay more from another seller and sues Wholesaler. Marko argues that under merchant

exception, his fax was sufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds. Is he right?

Strategy: These two parties are merchants, and the merchant exception applies. Under this

exception, a memo that could be enforced against the sender himself may bind the merchant who

receives it. Could this memo be enforced against Marko? Make sure that you know what terms

must be included to make a writing binding.

Result: The writing must indicate that the two parties reached an agreement. Marko’s memo

does so because he says he is confirming their discussion. Even if some terms are omitted, the

writing may still suffice. However, the memo will be enforced only to the quantity of goods stated.

Marko stated no quantity—a fatal error. His writing fails to satisfy the statute of frauds, and he

loses the suit.

                                                                                                            (30 marks)

Case Study-2 : EXCULPATORY CLAUSES

Shauna flew a World War II fighter aircraft as a member of an exhibition flight team.

While the team was performing in a delta formation, another plane collided with Shauna’s aircraft,

causing her to crash-land, leaving her permanently disabled. Shauna sued the other pilot

and the team. The defendants moved to dismiss, based on an exculpatory clause that Shauna had

signed. The clause was one paragraph long and stated that Shauna knew team flying was inherently

dangerous and could result in injury or death. She agreed not to hold the team or any members

liable in case of an accident. Shauna argued that the clause should not be enforced against

her if she could prove the other pilot was negligent. Please rule.

Strategy: The issue is whether the exculpatory clause is valid. Courts are likely to declare such

clauses void if they concern vital activities like medical care, exclude an intentional tort or gross

negligence, or arise from unequal bargaining power.

Result: This is a clear, short clause, between parties with equal bargaining power, and does not

exclude an intentional tort or gross negligence. The activity is unimportant to the public welfare.

The clause is valid. Even if the other pilot was negligent, Shauna will lose, meaning the court

should dismiss her lawsuit.

 (30 marks)

[TOTAL MARKS – 40 marks]

                                                                       

·         Harvard Referencing System MUST be used in the report with a Reference List at the end of this report. Up to 10% of the marks will be allocated for proper referencing and overall cogency of assignment.

·         Output must be word processed using Arial font, size 11, with 1.5 spacing and justified margin.

·         This assignment represents 50% of your overall module assessment grade.

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: XXFeb 2014