Topic:  Contract and Commercial Law

Description: [?]

Preferred language style: English(U.K.)

There is a word limit of 3,000. You will need
to reference the work using The Oxford Standard for Citation of Legal
Authorities (OSCOLA).
Marking Criteria
The marking criteria will be an application of the LLB Level 2
Assessment Criteria.
In brief, to achieve a pass mark students must demonstrate some knowledge and
understanding of the relevant law and make some attempt to apply it,
with satisfactory
presentation and some attempt to use and present references appropriately.
For an answer to be awarded a mark in the upper second/first class
range it will be
necessary for students to explain and apply the law correctly and coherently and
generally cite relevant legal sources and authorities. Conclusions, which are
consistent with the discussion, should be provided. Some evidence of
general and, for
higher marks, wider reading expected. Credit should be given for an unexpected
answer if it contains coherent and logical argument based on a correct
explanation of
the law.
N.B. If you quote or paraphrase passages from any sort of text or
texts, you must
fully reference them to avoid being accused of an assessment offence.
Plagiarism
Plagiarism refers to passing off someone else’s work as you own.
This may take the form of
copying from books and articles etc or from the internet, without
proper referencing and
quotations, or by other ways of using another’s work. All sources
used must be properly
referenced to page and appear in your bibliography.
If plagiarism is suspected it will be investigated and if proven could
result in a number of
penalties.

Here the case study

Tony and Sue are partners in Camera World which sells new and second
hand photographic
equipment. Tony has a credit card agreement made in 2005 in the UK and
Sue is a second
card-holder on Tony’s account.
In September 2009 Tony purchased a brand-new sports car from Cars R Us
at a cost of
£18000. The car was to be used by Tony and Sue for both business and
personal use. Two
months after taking delivery of the car Tom was unable to start the
car and he also noticed
that the front leather seat was slightly scratched. He returned the
car to Cars R Us who said
that they would investigate the faults. Three weeks later the car was
returned to Tony.
When Tony asked what the fault had been Cars R Us refused to say and
merely informed
Tony that the car had been repaired to �factory gate’ standard.
Tony also noticed that the
scratches on the seat had not been removed. He therefore decided to
reject the car and
informed Cars R Us of his decision. He was then alerted to a clause in
the signed contract
which stated that �refunds will only be considered for goods
returned within 7 days.’
Whilst on holiday in France in August 2009 Sue used the credit card to
purchase 10
waterproof digital cameras from Digitex France Ltd. Each camera was
priced at £200. As Sue
was very busy on her return to the UK she did not examine the cameras
until 3 months later
whereupon she realised that the cameras were not waterproof but only
�showerproof’.
When she tried to contact Digitex France Ltd she was told that the
company had just gone
into administration due to insolvency.
Tony’s next purchase was for a second hand camcorder which he
purchased from his next
door neighbour, Mike. Mike had just bought a new camcorder and he was pleased to
receive £100 from Tony for the camcorder. When Tony tried the
camcorder the following
day he realised that it was not functioning at all.
Ann’s next purchase was in November 2009 when she bought 5 tripods
from Bendy Box
Limited. When she unpacked the tripods 2 weeks later she realised that
the tripods had
been poorly manufactured and 4 of them were in pieces. When she
attempted to return the
tripods to Bendy Box Limited she was alerted to a clause on the back
of the receipt which
stated that �liability for breach of the implied terns within the
Sale of Goods Act 1979 is
excluded’.
Advise Tony and Sue.