Business Law Essay

Question 1
Adele was extremely upset by the telephone call from Eddie cancelling the order of wild boar piglets. Adele believes that Eddie had made a legally binding contract with her that he could not break. Eddie has argued that he was within his rights to make an agreement with whoever he pleased and owes nothing to Adele.
The agreement between Adele and Eddie cannot be characterized as the binding contract in its proper form. In fact, Adele and Eddie were just negotiating the possibility of sale and supply of wild boar piglets but they did not complete the binding contract. Therefore, Adele cannot count for the legal liability of Eddie for the contract breach because they did not really have the binding contract. To put it more precisely, they negotiated the price and products to be supplied, each party has made its offer, but Eddie did not agree on the purchase of wild boar piglets, although Adele agreed to supply them on conditions set by Eddie. What is meant here is the fact that Adele agreed on the price of wild boar piglets, which Eddie declared to be ready to pay and sent him a fax. However, Eddie did not see the fax and, what is more important, he did not respond to the fax. This means that he was still considering the offer but did not accept it. Therefore, this was not the binding contract. Eddie could agree on the conditions of the deal offered by Adele or deny it. Moreover, he had the right to choose any supplier he liked until he was engaged in the binding contract with either supplier. In such a context, Adele should receive the confirmation from Eddie that he agrees on the offered price and products before sending them to Eddie because he was just considering her offer.
Question 2
Adele spent two weeks away from work in order to recover from her injuries. Her bag (?4,500) was ruined and cannot be repaired and the Patek Philip watch (?15,000) cannot be fixed. Adele has contacted Bambi Stores and informed them that she expects some sort of compensation for the accident. Bambi replied that they have no liability for the accident due to the notice behind the cash desk excluding liability.
In actuality, Adele could count for the compensation from Bambi Stores because the professional negligence of the company and its employee led to injuries of Adele and damages to her property, which could not be repaired. In fact, Bambi Stores is liable for the injuries customers suffer in the company, if injuries are caused by the professional negligence of the employee working in the company. To put it more precisely, Reggie could be more careful while driving his fork-lift truck and he should ensure that his actions and his work would be secure for customers attending the store. In this regard, it is also possible to refer to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, according to which businesses are responsible for safety of their customers. This means that the company should create safe conditions, where customers could not suffer injuries or damages to their property. Instead, Bambi Stores just warned customers that the store does not take responsibility for safety of its customers. Obviously, the company should provide the secure environment, where customers could not receive any injuries. In fact, the company could not avoid the legal liability through placing the notice sign behind the cash desk. In such a way, the company should take responsibility and to ensure the safety of its customers.
Question 3
Sam is devastated about the death of Petski III and blames Beryl for selling him the wrong and contaminated type of meat. Beryl has informed Eddie and Jane who believe that legally Beryl did nothing wrong. They also believe that if she was in the wrong, they will not be liable as her employers.
Basically, Beryl did nothing wrong legally but Eddie and Jane are responsible for the death of Petski III because they should ascertain that the products they sell in their store are safe for customers. At this point, it is worth mentioning the fact that the meat Beryl sold to Sam had proved to be deadly for Petski III but it could also be dangerous to human health and Sam or other customer, who bought and ate this product could suffer poisoning or even more serious consequences. In such a context, Eddie and Jane are responsible for the safety of products they sell in their store under the Sale of Goods Act of 1979. This means that Eddie and Jane should ascertain that their suppliers are reliable enough and that they supply safe products. They should test the products they receive from its suppliers and they could not sell them before they are certain in the quality of products. Therefore, Eddie and Jane are responsible and legally liable for the effects of the consumption of products they sell in their store.