help with case study?
Written by admin on February 19, 2010 – 4:22 am -S Ltd manufacturers and sells lifting equipment. B Ltd operates a heavy goods vehicle servicing and repair business. On 1 July 2008 B Ltd requested a copy of S Ltd’s brochure and this was sent by post and received by B Ltd on 3 July 2008. Tom was the managing director for B Ltd. He read the brochure and selected a “Hercules” hydraulic jack system for lifting heavy goods vehicles and was priced in the brochure at £28,000. He completed the order form contained in the brochure and entered the company’s credit card details. He then, signed, dated and sent the form to S Ltd together with a covering letter that stated “Please note that all orders are submitted subject to B Ltd’s terms and conditions, a copy of which is enclosed.”
S Ltd sent a letter to B Ltd thanking them for their order and specifying that the ‘Hercules’ would be manufactured and delivered to B Ltd on 31 August 2008 at the listed price of £28,000.
The ‘Hercules’ hydraulic jack was delivered to B Ltd on 30 August 2008, together with an invoice for £30,000 which was stated to be payable in full in 30 days.
On receiving the invoice Tom telephoned and queried the price, stating that he had agreed a price of £28,000. He was told that S Ltd’s costs had increased and the company use a clause in the company’s terms stating that:
“S Ltd reserves the right to increase the price of goods supplied by a maximum of 10%.”
Max pointed out that the clause was included in the terms and conditions on the website.
Tom hung up and checked S Ltd’s terms on its website and found that one clause did indeed contain the above wording. Tom was aware that B Ltd’s terms and conditions contained the following clause:
“The contract price shall be that specified at the time of purchase. B Ltd will not accept any variation in the price after submission of an order.”
After the machine was delivered to B Ltd it failed because a small pressure screw had not been correctly tightened during manufacture. B Ltd’s technician tightened the screw and the ‘Hercules’ is now in perfect working order. However B Ltd’s vehicle being worked on at the time sustained damage amounting to £3000.
B Ltd’s terms and conditions state:
“The seller is responsible for all damages that follow from defective products that they have supplied under contract to the buyer.”
He then compared this with the S Ltd’s terms and conditions that state:
“S Ltd hereby excludes liability for damage caused by defective machinery or products supplied by S Ltd.”
i was just working thorught the question…i am having problem with summarising the facts of the case…can any of you guys help me with it please…if non of you guys mind…thank you
too hard to choose the best answer…but ever thank you for your help…i will leave to you guys to choose the best answer…ill put it on vote…once again thanks alot
The clause on the Web, was not part of the contract. I would sue to invalidate the contract.
powered by Yahoo answers
Posted in small business telephone systems |
May 16th, 2009 at 3:33 am
cheesesuls
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:36 am
you have written long,like a letter.if you wanna your question read,you should summarize that,or none will read that
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:39 am
Go to http://www.coursework.info it will help you.
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Is there a set date that is in the contract that S Ltd can return the merchandise to B Ltd? This is usually in most contracts and if so, simply return the product and then sue for the damage to the vehicle.
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Are you really going to trust the people on here to try and do that for you?I’m sure if you look in your course book it’ll have almost identical incidents. The final point I would think comes under the supply of goods and services act 1982 or the sale of goods act1979, goods supplied must be of suitable condition.
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:48 am
The law can be interpreted either way, but you should fight the case till the last which may be a drag, without that the evidence may be pointing towards the other way, provided that the witness -incriminating documents, if your case- won’t flounder or retract at the last moment. Usually all these terms and conditions are always in the interest of the sellers not the buyers, they are since governed and protected by Consumer Protection Act., and Standards and Conventions etc.,
References :
May 16th, 2009 at 3:51 am
The clause on the Web, was not part of the contract. I would sue to invalidate the contract.
References :
s–attorney at law 25 years
May 16th, 2009 at 7:24 am
So you want a better summary of the facts?
1. B Ltd wished to purchase a "Hercules" Hydraulic Jack System from S Ltd. The decision to purchase was made on 3rd July 2008. The purchase price was to be £28,000.
2. B Ltd wished to make the contract to purchase on its own terms, not on S Ltd’s terms. To this end, B Ltd sent, with S Ltd’s order form, a copy of it’s own contract terms and added a note stating that all orders were to be subject to B Ltd’s terms.
3. S Ltd sent a letter confirming the order at £28,000 and stating the "Hercules" would be delivered on 31st August 2008.
4. The "Hercules" was delivered on 30th August 2008. B Ltd was invoiced for £30,000 payable within 30 days. S Ltd claimed that the increase in price was permissible under a term in it’s terms and conditions which stated: "S Ltd reserves the right to increase the price of goods supplied by a maximum of 10%." The term was also present on S Ltd’s website.
5. After delivery, the "Hercules" failed, causing damage worth £3,000 to one of B Ltd’s vehicles. The failure was caused by a manufacturing fault. The fault was fixed by one of B Ltd’s engineers.
6.It was a term of B Ltd’s terms and conditions that: “The seller is responsible for all damages that follow from defective products that they have supplied under contract to the buyer.”
7. It was a term of S Ltd’s terms and conditions that: “S Ltd hereby excludes liability for damage caused by defective machinery or products supplied by S Ltd.”
8. The key issue is whether the contract of sale of the "Hercules" was concluded under the terms and conditions applied by S Ltd or B Ltd. There are also issues to do with Sale of Goods (the merchantable qualitity term), and possibly with incorporation of terms (the term on the website). The main issue is a fairly straightforward battle of the forms type case…
References :
law grad