Commercial Law coursework – Due XX December 202X at 13.00
GUIDANCE FOR STUDENTS
Read the scenario below and then consider each of the questions that follow.
Write an answer (word limit 2500 words) that addresses the legal issues that are raised by the questions. Ensure that your answer includes a separate response to each of the 7 questions set out below.
Your objective should be to demonstrate a sound understanding of those principles of contract law and commercial law that apply to the situations that follow, AND, where appropriate, highlight the difference between the ‘default’ position (common law plus statute), and the position that would prevail if the parties had adopted the standard form contract to the outcome of any dispute.
Refer to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), other relevant legislation, and the standard form contract that has been referred to throughout the module (and is included in the Module Handbook).
You are reminded that you will be assessed on your ability to organize and present information and arguments logically and coherently, and to communicate clearly and accurately, taking into account grammar, punctuation and spelling. Your work must be appropriately referenced using OSCOLA.
Assessment criteria can be found on Moodle in the “General” section.
Marks and feedback will be released on Moodle on 27 January following the Subject Exam Committee.
Information on Exceptional Circumstances can be found here:
https://www.brookes.ac.uk/students/your-studies/exceptional-circumstances/
The word limit for the coursework is 2500 words. The School of Law’s policy stipulates that a student may exceed the word limit by up to 10% without incurring a penalty.
Note: The work must be your own. Evidence of cheating / plagiarism can lead to a referral to SIRT.
MIRACLE-FRY
Miracle-Fry is a small company involved in the manufacture of air-fryers. One of its main customers is a large department store called John Lucas with many branches around the country. The business arrangements between buyer and seller have developed informally along the following lines:
Miracle-Fry provides a demonstration model of each of its air-fryers to the John Lucas stores. John Lucas does not pay for the demonstration models at this stage. Customers of John Lucas who select Miracle-Fry air-fryers are given an approximate delivery date. John Lucas then place an order with Miracle-Fry and include a 10 per cent deposit of the value of the goods ordered, and Miracle-Fry then send the air-fryers to the relevant store via an independent carrier. John Lucas pay the balance owing on each air-fryer on 60 days credit. John Lucas delivers the air-fryer to its customers using its own van and driver.
Miracle-Fry is concerned that the volume of business has grown considerably since the start of the relationship and feels that it might be appropriate to formalise the contractual arrangements. They are thinking of adopting the standard form contract that has been referred to throughout this module (see page 12 of Module Guide).
Comment on the following issues, contrasting the legal position that would prevail if the parties had adopted the standard form contract with the position that would prevail if they did not adopt the standard form contract.
Ensure that your answer comments on the relevant legal issues that arise in each of the following situations:-
- Describe the legal rules for ascertaining ownership of goods and comment specifically on the ownership of the air-fryers at each stage in the distribution chain (ie from manufacture to eventual delivery to the customer).
- In view of the fact that John Lucas will not be paying for the goods for some time, what advice would you offer Miracle-Fry as regards the risk of non-payment? Can they do anything to protect themselves against the risk of non-payment by John Lucas?
- If the goods were damaged in a fire while in the shop waiting to be delivered to retail customers, who would bear the loss? (ignore any aspects of insurance).
- If the goods were stolen from the delivery van while in transit from Miracle-Fry to one of John Lucas’s shops, who would bear the loss? (ignore any aspects of insurance).
- If John Lucas discovered that one consignment of air-fryers, although in good working order, are a different model from the ones which were ordered, what rights would John Lucas have?. Would they be able to cancel all further orders? Would they be entitled to compensation?
- If John Lucas discovered that in one consignment of air-fryers many of the models are slightly scratched, what legal action would John Lucas have and what remedies would be available to them as regards these particular goods?
- Consider the following additional scenario:
Miracle-Fry is becoming concerned about John Lucas’s financial position. Although John Lucas is not insolvent, it did not include the stipulated 10 per cent deposit with its latest order of general models. In addition, Miracle-Fry has not received payment for several outstanding invoices
Miracle-Fry is particularly worried as it has just arranged for several large consignments of goods to be sent by road to various John Lucas shops. The goods are still in transit (with the road haulage company) and Miracle-Fry is concerned that it may not be paid for these goods. A further three consignments of demonstration models are also waiting at the warehouse ready to be delivered to the independent carrier.
What if any steps can Miracle-Fry take to protect their position in these circumstances in relation to a) goods still at the warehouse, b) goods already despatched, c) demonstration models sold by John Lewis to its customers?
Get expert help for Sale of Goods Act- Commercial Law Coursework and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!
