The contract law has most common type of unfair terms namely, exclusion clauses, when one party seeks exclude their liability arising under the contract. True exclusion clause recognizes a potential breach of contract and then excuses liability for the breach. Alternatively, the clause is constructed in such a way it only includes reasonable care to perform duties on one of the parties. Arcadia's term mentioned is the type of true exclusion clause indicating the potential breach of contract about defects’ in goods and services to their ccustomers. It further added for customers to consider their property insurance for any damage or loss. The protection against the unfair terms comes from Common Law, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977(UCTA) …show more content…
Beth could seek remedy under tort negligence as damage was result of carelessness by installation team. But, its not applicable because of direct contractual relationship exists. In tort,the test for remoteness of damage is whether the kind of damage suffered was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of the breach of duty (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1)  AC 388).The defendant will be liable for any type of damage which is reasonably foreseeable as liable to happen even in the most unusual case unless the risk is so small that a reasonable man would in the whole circumstances feel justified in neglecting it (Heron II  1 AC 350). In conclusion, when loss occurs, the exclusion clauses become important to rely on for both parties. This could cost supplier if these clauses are challenged. However, the court’s decision could go either way, it is clear that certainly in consumer to business contracts, suppliers can limit their liability through carefully clear written exclusion clauses .However, claimants has potential to seek claim under the two Acts if required tests has been passed making case
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
For M2, I will analyse how consumers are protected in breach of contract of law for supply and sales of good or service by legislation like Sales of Good act 1979 which imposes responsibility to the seller to make sure products are good quality. Also, I will be explaining the limitation of this legislation in protecting customers from defected products.
Contract law controls most agreements between parties, whether oral or written, that involve goods, services, money, employment contracts and real estate deals. In order for a contract to be valid, there must be a few elements that are satisfied. There must be a negotiation, an agreement which consists of an offer and acceptance of the offer, consideration, capacity, and legality. The sources of law that governs contracts today consist of two bodies of law, Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, also known as the UCC, and the common law of contracts. Determining what body of law applies to a contract dispute is an important first step in analyzing that problem. The Uniform Commercial Code, or UCC, is a statutory law that was adopted in every
is vicarious liability. Vicarious liability essentially is when someone is held responsible for the tortious act of another person, typically seen in the workplace where an employer is generally held responsible for his/her employee’s action during their course of employment . In the case study, this liability is evident as an employee of Acme Underground did not fully test the conditions of the sub-surface . This indicates a vicarious liability may be possible because the employee was simply following order to conduct test for sub-surface conditions of the bridge site. In fact, Dutton V. Bognor Regis United Building Co. Ltd. case in 1972  can effectively show such liability is indeed present in the case study. Summarizing the precedent case, a house was built on a rubbish deposit which requires larger foundation . The foundation must be approved by an inspector by law, however, the inspector failed to properly inspect the foundation and part of the building collapsed . The final verdict of this case was that the building inspector and the building authority are both liable . This case clearly indicates that although the higher up was not directly related to the incident, he/she may still be responsible for the employee’s mistake which is a matching circumstance to the facts given in the case study. Thus, the employee of Acme Underground may have made a mistake in his work, but since it is in the
Legal Studies Essay Joey Agerholm Exclusion clauses determine the liability of something that might go wrong within a contract. They are used by sellers as an attempt to avoid or limit their liability. The seller has the advantage over the buyer who must agree to the clauses to purchase the product/service. Because of the buyers disadvantage the court takes such cases, involving exclusion clauses, very seriously, and the content of the clauses are carefully interpreted. With the current Trade Practises Act and the Fair Trading Act the standard form of business contract is adequate and effective in protecting the buyer. The Trade Practise Act is the most effective legislation for the protection of the consumer. It implies to the following situations:- - “A promise by the seller that the buyer will become the owner” If a car dealer breaks a promise or part of a contract, for example that he has the right to sell a car, and the car is stolen then although the buyer will have to give the car back he/she will get her money back. - “ A promise by the seller that goods will fit the description supplied by the seller” In this case the buyer is protected if the seller makes a promise, which is a condition of the contract, describing the product, and when the buyer receives the product, it does not match the description. - “ A promise where the seller is made aware of the purpose for which the goods are required, that the goods will be reasonably fit for that purpose” This condition is implied when the buyer makes the purpose of the goods needed known to the seller, and the buyer then relies on the seller’s judgement in providing the correct product. For example it would not be reasonable if you made the seller aware that you wished to purchase something suitable for mowing the average suburban backyard and you were sold a tractor. - “A Promise that goods are of merchantable quality” According to this act a good is considered to be merchantable if they are suitable for the prospect for which other similar goods are sold, involving the description applied to them, the price and any other relevant information. This act does however does not protect the consumer if he/she has examined the product and missed any defects that should have been seen or if the seller made him/her aware of the defect prior to the purchase of the product.
The Australian Consumer Law (ACL) was established to protect consumers in any legal trading activities in Australia. A set of guarantees has also been introduced for those consumers who are acquiring goods and services from Australian suppliers, importers or manufacturers. The guarantees are intended to ensure that consumers will receive the goods or services they have paid for. If they have problems with the products and services they bought, they are entitled for remedies, such as repair, replacement, and refund.
This essay will outline the legal rights and obligations of Josh and Julie in regards to the likelihood of legal action being pursued against them by Steward and/or Brendan in regards to a breach of contract. The argument will summaries the difference between an offer and an invitation to treat and how the courts would interpret Josh and Stewards case if it were to go to court. The situation considered between Josh and Brendan will be dismembered quickly. Clarification is provided to describe the irrelevance of the exclusion clause within their agreement; this is backed up through evidence in statute law. To conclude the arguments will outline how Josh and Julie will not suffer any legal action brought forward by either Steward or Brendan but
n. failing to perform any term of a contract, written or oral, without a legitimate legal excuse. This may include not completing a job, not paying in full or on time, failure to deliver all the goods, substituting inferior or significantly different goods, not providing a bond when required, being late without excuse, or any act which shows the party will not complete the work ("anticipatory breach"). (Legal Dictionary - Law.com. (2017).
Human Resource Management is the first source I used for this project. It lists and describes the equal opportunity laws enacted from 1964 to the present. I found these descriptions to be quite helpful in understand what each law covers and why.
The regulation of industrial relations and employment relationships in Australia through government policies and state intervention dates back to 1904 through Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth). Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is the major employment law that is presently used and supersedes the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Nankervis et al. 2017). This section of the report aims to give comprehensive understanding regarding Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and assesses the impact of this law in encouraging employer-employee collaboration. The major provisions of this law include the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, modern awards, minimal wages objectives, the National Employment Standards, agreements
This is so because once non-breaching parties successfully taken steps to reduce losses, damages received are small amount of reliance losses, but if they do not take these steps, they may not get full compensation. This shows that contract law is being harsh towards non-breaching parties to limit claims of damages. In Payzu Ltd v Saunders, as defendants’ cheque for their first batch of silk was not received, the claimants breach the contract by claiming that they would not continue delivering silks unless claimants pay in cash. However, the claimants refused this suggestion and claim damages for difference of contracted and market price. It was held that the claimants should have mitigated their loss.