Call – +44-74800-56698
Richard bought 4 shock absorbers adapted for off-road driving for his jeep paying $480 on the suggestion of Emma, the manager of Shocks Are Us. However, when he went for a test drive the shock absorber failed and the car crashed. The damages amounted to $2000. Now, the question is who is liable to bear the loss. Moreover, another issue is whether Richard is liable to get any compensation or not.
Richard has been paying a rent of $5000 per month to George as rent for using his premises. The rent is supposed to increase by 10% at the end of every six months. However Richard confesses in June that he would not be able to pay the increment due to obscurities in his business, George allowed him the wave off. However, in June 2017, George rang up and demanded extra 4300 from Richard. He disagreed to confirm any verbal contracts and stated that the specifications of the lease paper would hold. This may be considered a breach of contract.
In the third case, Tom’s initial offer of $18500 is discarded by Richard initially. In turn, he demands $19000. However, when Tom confesses that he is unable to pay the amount, Richard agrees to accept his previous offer. Accordingly, he brings the car to Tom’s place. However, at that time Tom does not accept the car and refuses to pay any amount.
Since Martin looked after Richard’s car lot in august, Richard allowed him to borrow a car without paying. However, when Martin goes to pick up the car, Richard says that it has gone on hire. Martin considers this a breach of contract.
As per the contracts Act, 1999 (section 18A) and the Sale OF Goods Act 1979 (section 14) word of mouth may be considered as a contract. Breach of the contract is equally punishable like a breach of a written contract. As evident from the Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Limited T/A Entertainment Group v Lombard North Central PLC (2012), the loss amount is liable to be paid by the Shocks on Us company. As per the oral modification clause of the Word of mouth Law, Richard is liable to receive the compensation amount if he is able to substantiate his loss amount via written documents.
Again, in the second case, a reference from the Thomas KELLOGG v. Cindy SHUSHEREBA (2013) case may be considered. Oren was forced to pay the alleged amount in that case. By the standards of the case Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (Section 18), Richard is liable to pay the extra $3000 if the house owner George approaches the court and disagrees any wave of the agreement. However, in case if Richard can produce any witness of the verbal assurance of George, the payable amount for him may lessen.
Thirdly the example of the Uber v Aslam case may be cited. The appeal of the Uber drivers did not stand in front of the employment tribunal. As per this case, the issue of not accepting the pre-booked product may be considered. The issue is that Tom did not sign any purchase clause with Richard. As per the Product liability and safety law, it is essential to seal a contract with a buyer at the confirmation of the purchase. Since this was not done; the court is more likely to reject Richard’s appeal if he rings the court.
In order to shed light upon the final case, the Bolton v Mahadeva  case may be considered. The appellant, in this case, received the contracted value minus the cost of defects. Similarly, in this case, Martin may also appeal that Richard has not kept his words. However, considering the frivolity of the case, the judge may ask the accused and the appellants to solve the dispute among them.
Call – +44-74800-56698
In the first case, the Contracts Law 1999 and the Sale of Goods act 1979 may be used. As per section 3 of the Contracts law 1999, the promissory may save her in this case. However, according to Section 2 of the Contract Law 1999, the third party that is Richard may apply that the liability of this loss lies entirely with the manager Emma. Section 5 and section 8 of the law may also be applicable. In that case, the manager has higher chances of winning this case.
In the second case, as per the Article 3A of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985, Richard should have given written notice at least to the house owner stating his financial problem. Since no evidence can be produced in favour of the verbal rent waving, the decision of the court is likely to go in the favour of the landowner. Thirdly in the case of Tom’s not accepting the act of paying for it, the word of mouth that he had given will not be considered as unconditional assent as per the Contract Law of UK. In this situation, the liability of bringing the car at the doorstep of Tom will completely rest with Richard. Finally, in the case of Martin, the verbal offer may also be accepted as a kind of Contract for consumer credit by the judge. In case if Martin appeals to the court, the verbal contract of Richard with Martin may gain ground. However, since this is s petty case, the court may suggest the mitigation of the case by mutual contract.
This project highlights four issues which come under various law acts under the jurisdictions of the British court. As such, the law acts that are applicable to this case have been highlighted and verdicts of other similar court cases have been analysed also. Under this circumstance, the primary laws that have been applicable are the English Contracts Law, the Sale of Goods Law and the Consumer Protection laws. The possible scenario if these issues were converted to court cases has been discussed in detail.
Air Studios (Lyndhurst) Ltd (T/A Air Entertainment Group) V Lombard North Central Plc  EWHC 3162 (QB) (09 November 2012)’ (Bailii.org, 2018) <http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/3162.html> accessed 14 November 2017
‘Bolton V Mahadeva’ (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2018) <http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Bolton-v-Mahadeva.php> accessed 9 November 2017
Brown S Brown, ‘Book-Smart, Not Street-Smart: Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts And The Social Workings Of Law’ (Blockchain Ascending, 2018) <https://blockchainascending.com/2018/01/15/book-smart-not-street-smart-blockchain-based-smart-contracts-and-the-social-workings-of-law/> accessed 14 October 2017
‘Contract Disputes – John Antell – Barrister’ (Johnantell.co.uk, 2018) <http://www.johnantell.co.uk/contract-and-commercial-law> accessed 3 December 2017
‘Electronic Law Journals – JILT 2002 (2) – Desai Et Al’ (Warwick.ac.uk, 2018) <https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2002_2/desai/> accessed 17 December 2017
‘Findlaw’s Supreme Court Of Vermont Case And Opinions.’ (Findlaw, 2018) <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/vt-supreme-court/1643742.html> accessed 15 November 2017
‘Private Renting – GOV.UK’ (Gov.uk, 2018) <https://www.gov.uk/private-renting> accessed 30 November 2017
Call – +44-74800-56698Order Now