HND 商务契约关系 outcome1.docx

HND 商务契约关系 outcome1.docx

《HND 商务契约关系 outcome1.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《HND 商务契约关系 outcome1.docx（6页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

HND商务契约关系outcome1

Case1

Q1：

Maggie没受伤，她是否有权利起诉SELLER；商品是inasale,是否影响MAGGIE的权利？

（买方和卖方的关系）

A1：

1，Yes,shecandothat.

2，ThebasiclawisthesellerviolationtheImpliedTermsofSOGA1979.Itisincludefourterms.

a）Section12SOGA1979ImpliedTermsofTitle

b）Section13SOGA1979SalebyDescription

c）Section14SOGA1979SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforPurpose.

d）Section15SOGA1979SalebySample

ThiscasewasviolationSection14SOGA1979.Section14impliedtwoterms:

SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforthePurpose.ThemajorviolationofthiscaseisSatisfactoryQuality.

⑴ThestandardofSection14ofSOGA1979is“thatareasonablepersonwouldregardassatisfactorytakingaccountofanydescriptionofthegoods,theprice（ifrelevant）andallotherrelevantcircumstances”.

⑵TherearefactorsthatarelistedinSection14ofSOGA1979aspotentiallyrelevantinappropriatecases:

☉Fitnessforthepurposeforwhichgoodsofthekindinquestionarecommonlysupplied.

☉Appearanceandfinish

☉Freedomfromminordefects

☉Safetyand

☉Durability

⑶Inthiscase,thetumbledryerislackofsafetyanddurability.Maggiejustboughtittwomonths,soitstillanewtumbledryer.Itwascaughtfire.Clearly,itislackofdurability.Thetumbleisalatentdefectinthewiringthatleadtodetonate.Sowesaiditislackofsafety.

3,Maggieboughtthetumbledryerinasale,butitdoesnotdiminishthebuyer’srightsunlesstheyareclassedas“seconds”etcoraparticulardefectisbroughttotheattentionofthebuyerasbeingthereasonforthereductioninprice.Maggiedidnotknowthebugofthetumbledryerbeforeshebuyit.SoMaggie’srightsshouldnotbediminished.

4,◎ThecitedcaseisThomsonvJSears＆Co（1926）,thepursuerpurchasedbootsforhimselfandsufferedperiostosisofthefootasaresultoftheinsolehavingcrumpledupandbecomeknottedandnodular.Itshouldbeobviousthatthebootsweregoingtobewornasfootwear.

◎InthecaseofPriestVLast（1903）,abuyerwasscaldedafterusingahotwaterbottleandwassuccessfulinsuingtheselleronthebasisthatthebottlewasunfitforthepurpose.

Strictliabilityalsoappliesanditisnodefencethatthesellerhasdoneallthatisreasonabletoavoidbreachoftheprovision.（nao）

◎InthecaseofFrostVAylesburyDairyCOltd（1905）,wheretheplaintiff’swifediedfromconsumingmilkcontaininggermsoftyphoidfeverandthedairycouldnotdefendtheactiononthebasisthattheycouldnotreasonablyhavediscoveredthepresenceofthevirusinthemilk.（pao）

Q2:

Charlie受伤，MAGGIE该怎么办？

（theinjuryofCharlie）

A2:

1,Charliecannotimpaledtheseller.Becausethatheisnotthebuyer.Charlienocontractualrelationshipwiththeseller.TheprovisionsofSOGA1979onlyapplytothebuyer,nottoanyotherpeopleorparty.HehasnoclaimagainstthesellerundertheAct.

2,ThereisacasethatDonoghueVSterenson1932,MrsDonoghuedrunksomeofmixtureandherfriendthenliftedthebottleandwaspouringouttheremainderintoatumblerwhenadecomposedsnailfloatedoutofhebottleandintoherdrink.MrsDonoghuesufferedshockandillnessasaresult.Sheclaimeddamagesagainstthemanufacturer.TheHouseofLordsruledthatthemanufacturerwouldhavetopayMrsDonoghuedamagesasheowedadutyofcaretoanyoneusinghisproduct.Hehadfailedinthatdutyofcare.

3,AccrodingtotheConsumerProtectionAct1987thatthesellerhastoreturnboththepurchasepriceandcompensateforanydamage.Thebuyerdoesnothavetoprovenegligenceonthepartoftheseller.Tothedangerousproductscausingdamagesorinjury,manufacturershouldassumethestrictliability.Justpresumefaultofmanufacturer.

4Inthiscase,CharlieshouldaccordingtotheConsumerProtectionAct1987toimplead.Theprocessshouldnotprovethefaultofmanufacturer,justmentionCharliewasinjury.

Q3:

Seller说是厂商的责任，零售商是否可以就此免责。

A3：

1,No,theycannotexcludeliability.

2,AccordingtotheStrictLiabilityinSOGA1979thatthebuyershouldproveitisafaultygood,butthebuyershouldnotprovenegligence.Thesellercoulddamagetothebuyerandthendemandcompensationtothemanufacturer.

3,Maggiecangetallofthecompensation,includepersonalinjuryandgoodsdamage.ButshecannotdemandcompensationaboutinjuryofCharlie.BecausethatCharlieisnotthebuyer.

Q4:

在告示之后的损失，免责条款是否生效？

（thereisanoticetoexclusionclause）

A4:

1,Thesellerwillfail.Theycannotexclusionclause.

2,♀AccordingtotheUnfairContractTermsAct1977.定义（youwillrecallfromyourpreviousstudyofthelawofcontractthatforanexclusionclause,weathervalidornot,tobeconsideredaspartoftheecontractitmustbe:

“incorporated”orformpartofthecontract.ConsumercontractsforthesupplyofgoodsandservicesarecoveredbytheAct,aswellascontractsofemploymentandapprenticeship.）.

♀InSection16ofUnfairContractTermsAct1977,wecanknownthat‘anyattempttoexcludeliabilityfordeathorpersonalinjuryarisingfrombreachofanyoftheabovedutiesisvoid’

♀Section20UCTA1977,coversattemptstoexcludeorrestrictliabilityinrelationtoimpliedtermsinSOGA1979.Aspreviouslydiscussed,anysuchclausesarevoidinaconsumercontract.Thenoticecannotexcludetheseimpliedterms.

♀ThecontrolsimposedbytheActaremorestringentonconsumercontractsthanonbusinesstobusinesscontracts.Thestrongestpossibleprotectionconsumer.

3,UnfairTermsinConsumerContractsRegulations1999.UndertheseRegulations,aconsumercansetasideacontractforgoodsorservicesbyshowingthatthecontractisunfair.TheRegulationsapplytoanyterminacontractbetweenasellerorsupplierandaconsumerwherethetermhasnotbeenindividuallynegotiated.

UnfaircontractTermAct1977haswiderapplication,becausetheActappliestoconsumercontractsandnon-consumercontracts;Againa‘reasonablenesstest’isappliedwherethereisanattempttoexcludecontractualliability.

4,Nowthenewoneis“UnfairContractTermsBill2005”,itcombineUnfairContractTermsAct1977andUnfairTermsinConsumerRegulation1999.

5,Inthiscase,thesellerwantusethenoticeexcludeliabilityfordeathorpersonalinjury,butbreachofanyoftheabovedutiesisvoid.Toacertainly,thesellermustfail.

Q5:

Maggie将得到什么补偿（remedies）？

A5:

1,Maggiecanclaimdamagepayableistheestimatedlossarisingfromtheseller’sbreachofcontract.suchlikeherkitchen.Andthebreachismaterialtotreatthecontractasrepudiated.Maggiecanrescissionthecontract.

2,TheremediesavailableunderSection48SOGA1979are:

☉Repairingorreplacementofgoods

☉Reductioninprice

☉Rescissionofthecontract.

Case2

Q1:

Actofparliament:

consumercreditagreement（与消费信贷有关的成文法有哪些？

）

A2：

ConsumerCredit＆TheConsumerCreditAct1974（CCA1974）.Itcontainedconsumercreditagreementandconsumerhireagreement.

☉AconsumercreditagreementisdefinedinSection8oftheCCA1974asapersonalcreditagreementwherethecreditsuppliesthedebtorwithcreditnotexceeding＄25,000.This＄25,000limitonlyappliestotheamountofcreditadvanced,itdoesnotincludeanyinterestcharged

☉AconsumerhireagreementisdefinedinSection15oftheCCA1974asanagreementmadebyanownerofgoodstohiregoodstoanindividualknownasthe‘hirer’andwhichisnotahire-purchaseagreement;iscapableoflastingformorethanthreemonths;anddoesnotrequirethehirertomakepaymentsexceeding＄25,000.

Q2:

Whatarethemainbodyinthecase?

Thelegalrelationshipbetweencompanyandbank（案例中的两个主题是什么？

公司和银行）

A2：

1,ThecaseinvolveDebtor-Credit-Supplieragreement.Wherethecreditisnotthesupplierofthegoods.Intheseagreementswheregoodsorservicescostmorethan100orlessthan30,000thedebtorcanholdthecreditorjointlyandseverallyliablewithsupplierwhenheclaimsmisrepresentationorbreachofcontractagainstthesupplier.Inthiscase,theMarvellousMotorsPLCissupplier,thebankisthecreditor,theconsumerisdebtor.

2,ThebankandMarvellousMotorsPLChaveconnectedlenderliability.UnderSection75oftheCCA1974boththecreditorandthesupplierarejointlyandseverallyliableinrespectofanybreachofcontract.Theconsumerwouldthereforechoosetoclaimagainsteitherthecreditororthesupplier.

3,PLCisagentofbank.（PLC是银行的代理人）

PLCisagentofbank.

Q3:

CreditsaleandHirePURCHASE的区别？

A3：

Underahirepurchaseagreementthehireragreestopayforthehireofthegoodsoveraperiodoftimewithanoptiontopurchaseattheendofthehireperiod.Ownershipofgoodsdoesnotpassuntilthelastpaymenthasbeenmade.

Acreditsaleagreementisonewherethepurchasepriceispayableinfiveormoreinstallments,butisnotaconditionalsaleagreement.Ownershipofthegoodswouldpassimmediatelytothebuyer.

Hirepurchaseneverinvolvesthepurchaseofland.

Q4:

消费信贷合同撤消权利。

（righttocanceltheagreement.）

A4:

1,therearetwoconditions:

therehasbeenanoralsellingoftheagreementtothedebtor;andtheagreementhasbeensignedbythedebtorofftradepremises.

2,coolingoffperiod是如何规定的？

Therighttocancelmustbemadewithin5daysofreceivingthecopyagreement.

Thedebtormustdeliveranoticeofcancellationeitherinpersonorbypost.

Aftercancellationthedebtoristohaveanysumspaidreturnedtohimandanygoodsmustberetuned（debtoristotakereasonablecareofthegoodsfora21daysperiodandhandthemoverwhenaskedforthem）

Thedebtorhastherighttoretaingoodspendingreturnofmoniespaidorgoodsgiveninpart-exchangeortheirmonetaryvalue

Cancellationofaregulatedagreementalsocancelsalinkedtransaction.

?

3,Case中的消费者是否拥有