Provides examples of four casework instances for different business law uses - focusing on consumer act, contract law and equality act. Provides for and againist for each with examples, intros and conclusion with what next steps for each casework example along with references.
Guildford Consumer Business and Advice services
MAN 2108: Business Law
Casework 01 – 648 words
Casework 02 – 634 words
Casework 03 – 645 words
Casework 04 – 647 words
Total word count: 2,574
, Casework 01:
The parties identified are Paul, the claimant and ‘Rage Secondhand Motorcycles of Guildford Limited’,
the defendant.
Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) s.75(1) supports Paul, as a “independent vehicle inspector” found the
motorcycle to be “dangerous and unroadworthy” from “hidden cracks within the subframe”, any
vehicle found unroadworthy should not be supplied. This supports s.14 of the Consumer Rights Act
2015 (CRA 2015). Additionally, the motorcycle was unfit for purpose as it “came to an abrupt halt”
and “needed a new engine manifold and new rear suspension”, undermining s.9 and s.10 of CRA 2015.
This disproves s.11 as the “showroom manager confirmed the details in the advert”. This suggests
there could be negligent misrepresentation and a breach of duty, as the showroom manager did not
possess the intelligence and general knowledge of a reasonable person. The Postal Rule may apply as
both parties agreed to correspond by post. However, there was no consideration between Paul and
‘Magnet Road Interceptor Motorbike Club’, so s.62 of CRA 2015 is not binding.
Initially it was an invitation to treat as Paul “saw an advert in the local paper” but when Paul “visited
the showroom” there was consideration. This supports Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots
Cash Chemists as the contract is not complete until customers specify what they need, and someone
accepts the offer. Therefore, Paul entered into a contract as there was consideration, offer and
acceptance with the intention to create a legal binding document. Household Fire Insurance v Grant
supports Paul, as the terms were expressed that acceptance of an offer could be posted. Hence, the
contract was complete upon posting, regardless of delayed delivery. Since the parties agreed the
membership fee and cheque could be “sent”, this was a sign of acceptance. Additionally, Bernstein v
Pamson Motors held the vehicle was not of merchantable quality, as Paul received “hospital
treatment”. It may be found the vehicle was not of merchantable quality as it did not adhere to RTA
1988 and CRA 2015.
The CRA 2015, s.14 could support the defendants as “Paul visited the showroom’”. They could rely on
that fact that Paul has seen/examined the model and there was no noticeable defects on the
motorcycle before entering into the contract. However, since they sell and supply vehicles, they
should have the reasonable foreseeability to inspect their vehicles before being sold, this could
account for negligence on their behalf. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 s.4(1)(d) they may
claim the defect did not exist at the relevant time. Therefore, Paul must prove the defect caused the
injuries he sustained.
The defendants can rely on Adams v Lindsell, as Paul “asked Sophie if he could take her letter”. By Paul
not sticking to postal regulations it could have resulted in the letter not being received. This supports
their defence as it did not follow the postal regulations for authentication which can be supported by
London and Northern Bank Ex p. Jones, Re. If Postal rules are not followed, Paul may not be able to
rely on it because it resulted in Novus actus intervenes.
Pauls Remedies under the CRA 2015 would be determined by a panel of personal injury solicitors from
his pain, suffering and loss of amenity along with any medical or other treatment required to aid
recovery. If Paul is successful, he could receive £6,000 to £18,000 from damages and will be able to
claim back costs. Additionally, general damages will be factored in which are set by the Judicial College.
Under the CRA 2015 Paul took ownership of the motorbike from the date of purchase. So, he has 30-
days to reject the motorbike under s.20. Additionally, the ‘Objective Test’ could support negligence
and the courts could determine whether a duty of care was owed, however this would be established
on the balance of probabilities as Paul will need to prove the motorcycle caused his injuries.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller thepenguin. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.74. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
