This report addresses the issues related to the contract offered by the mass-merchandise department store.
This report addresses the issues related to the contract offered by the mass-merchandise department store. The following recommendation is offered: Do not pursue the contract with the department store chain. Rationale EFFECTS ON BUSINESS Contracting with the department store chain will have several negative effects on the nature of the business. The core competency that has been established since the beginning will now change. The buyers will no longer use their knowledge and expertise to find genuine artifacts. Instead they must develop negotiation skills to deal with mass merchandising of replicas. Delivery, pricing, and quality will all have to be confronted. Tripling replica production means increasing the search for artisans with quality re-creations. This will change the scope of the business from procurement of artifacts to manufacturing of replicas. Because employees will not be able to use their area of expertise, quitting will become an issue. The distinctive competency will not be used in the replica business and therefore the contract should not be pursued. EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS/MARKET Collectors of artifacts take pride in their knowledge and interest of authentic creations. If the contract were pursued, it is possible that a collector may accidentally buy an artifact and feel "duped" and embarrassed around other collectors. Furthermore, replicas
Duress and the Voluntariness of Ordinary People
Duress and the Voluntariness of Ordinary People English contract law has based its fundamental doctrine of existence on the idea of voluntariness and freedom of choice. A contract which lacks such choice is often said to be obtained by some form of duress. The only problem with this analogy is that, to some degree, most contracts are made under duress. Duress which is unavoidable. Firms often have a monopoly, like the utilities such as gas, electricity and water industries, where freedom of choice is non-existent. What distinguishes this from duress actionable by the courts is the courts interpretation of the legality of the duress.Duress that is illegal in the common law has evolved into three main areas in the last twenty years but for much of its previous existence was defined on very narrow lines. Duress of the person, a long established principle, involved either threats of or actual violence to the contracting party. The violent act must be illegal but does not have to be the main reason or only reason the contract was entered into. It is for the defence to prove such threats made no contribution to the other parties will. It must be stressed that the act must be illegal so a threat to sue would be justified if it were true. The principles of duress of the person have been given in a Privy Council case Barton-v-Armstrong which, although not a binding precedent, would be
Unauthorised transaction in business law.
Unauthorised Transaction In Business Law This question is related to unauthorised transactions more specifically those relating to express authority of an officer dealing with a 3rd party. Firstly statutory protection can be examined as this provides some important points through S35A of the Companies Act 1985. The main point is that the section is in favour of a person dealing with a company in good faith and more importantly that a 3rd party is still considered as acting in good faith if they are aware that the officer did not have authority to carry out a transaction. In this case it seems the 3rd party need not concern himself with issues relating to express authority however common law may prevail. This would occur if S35A proved unclear on issues of an officer's authority to carry out a transaction. The main common law rule is known as the "Indoor Management Rule" (Or Turquand Rule) which states that a 3rd party should assume a director is authorised and if he is not the 3rd party is not liable. This seems to back up the statutory provision that a 3rd party should not concern himself to a great extent on express authority however the Indoor Management Rule does carry the proviso that if the transaction was unusual in terms of size or nature for the officer to have authority then the 3rd party is expected to enquire (Houghton & Co V Nothard, Lowe & Wills Ltd 1927). In
Unfair contracts - If you are an individual dealing with a company / business and you enter into a contract and that contract is unfair you may not have to keep to what you have agreed
UNFAIR CONTRACTS If you are an individual dealing with a company / business and you enter into a contract and that contract is unfair you may not have to keep to what you have agreed. Often contracts have "standard terms", this means a company or business uses the same contract for all its customers or clients. These standard terms must be fair. You may sign a standard contract for example when you book a holiday or buy goods. Often the contract is printed on the receipt, booking or application form. Such contracts are often called "the small print". The law says that the terms of the contract must be written in plain language that is easy to understand. However, there are some standard terms, which you might not be able to challenge. For example, standard terms explaining the contract, setting the price, or terms, which by law have to be included in the contract. In deciding if a contract is unfair the court has to look at whether it is unfairly weighted against you, whether there was unequal bargaining strength and whether the company / business behaved properly in getting you to agree to the terms of the contract. If part of a contract is found to be unfair the court will not allow the company / business to enforce that part of the contract. The law also says that if a company or business tries to exclude liability or responsibility under the contract this may
What are the rules governing the doctrine of frustration in the law of contract? Evaluate it's usefulness.
Paper 1, June 2000, Question 5 a) What are the rules governing the doctrine of frustration in the law of contract? (15m) b) Evaluate the usefulness of this doctrine. (10m) a) The term "frustration of a contract" defines the unexpected termination of a contract as a result of an event that either renders the performance impossible or illegal, or prevents its main purpose from being achieved. For a contract to be frustrated, there must first be a contract between the parties. The frustration must be beyond the control of the contracting parties, and the event must bring the contract to an end. The frustrating event must also occur after the formation of the contract. In Paradine v. Jane, the court adhered to the theory of 'absolute contracts', and it was said that if the parties wanted to avoid liability, then they will have to state this in the contract. Later, in Taylor v. Caldwell, it was said that a contract can be discharged if the contract became impossible to perform, due to some external cause that neither party was responsible for. The modern test was enunciated by Lord Simon in National Carriers v. Palpina, where frustration arises when 'there supervenes an event (without default of either party, and for which the contract makes no sufficient provision), which so significantly changes the nature of the outstanding contractual rights/ obligations from what the
Boots the chemist v Amdahl (UK) Ltd
Contract Law: Written Work Lawrence Johnson Boots the chemist v Amdahl (UK) Ltd 2. Amdahl, a provider of computer equipment to Boots, were found to be in breach of contract for having refused to repurchase computer equipment which they were under obligation to do so. This was due to an offer made previously, including an exercisable option of delaying the sell-back time. Boots however, upgraded with a rival company, and Amdahl argued that their offer was not accepted and so were within their right to withdraw it. 3. In structuring my argument, I would firstly want to establish whether the letter dated 20/07/1995 constituted an agreement. This is significant as without the original offer and acceptance a contract simply does not exist. The second issue I would want to allude to is whether the two parties objectively agreed to what they set out to achieve. If this is the case presumably both parties possessed the intention to create legal relations. Thus, giving rise to a binding contract. The final issue to address is that of consideration, i.e. was the variation of the original contract capable of benefiting both parties? If so we can ascertain that the consideration aspect was satisfied. 4. Waller LJ, in his judgement, heavily highlights the theory of market ideology. That is that where a party in the business environment reasonably assumes that they have
