Business Law
Rules for Offer and Acceptance
Mary and David are both operating a fitness center; Mary is considering buying a spare step-machine from David. We are hence trying to establish whether there is an agreement between the two. As stated above, a contract can be transacted both orally or also done in writing, in Mary’s and David’s case it is done orally hence full filling that part of the elements of a legally binding contract. Further to this, the contract was specific in the sense that the price was agreeable to both parties; David was required to respond if he was not satisfied with the payment set by Mary which he did not do so hence agreeing.
An offer has to exist for a contract to be legally binding. This is a proposition made by one person to another over a certain issue. The offer has to be agreeable by both parties and conditions that bind it. The offers are normally limited to a certain period. In Mary and David’s case, there was an offer made with a time limit, BUT there was no conditions binding the offer. This in consequence cancels out the thought of a legally binding contract.
Going further an agreement term was created where David was not supposed to respond if he agreed to. This may be one oral or written, this was done orally. This is what is called acceptance. Another element is a counter-offer which normally cancels out the first offer; in this case there was no counter-offer made as the first offer made was not mutually agreeable.
Consent is not similar to acceptance as there has to be something signifying the agreement. This was not what happened in Mary and David’s case. Each party can be assumed to be competent, in that they both are assumed to be over eighteen years of age as they are transacting a business.
Summarily, there was no legally binding contract between Mary and David. The agreement was not specific, it had no conditions and further to this it lacked a significant symbol to show the contract was legally binding.
Product Liability as a result of a defect
According to the consumer protection law, section 2 subsections 2, a person is held liable for a product if he or she is the producer of the product, any person who has placed his name on the trade mark of any product has placed himself to be automatically the producer. The person using the product, in this case the hair dryer, is supposed to be kept safe when using the product. The safety involves what a person is generally supposed to expect thus hindering the user from the risk of death or injury. Susan and Sally are hence both are required to be placed safe from any injury when using the equipment. The defect of the hair dryer has in the first instance broken one of the laws of the consumer protection act, through the injury of human and causing the destruction of property.
Taking into account that the hair dryer, it had a defect, according to the consumer protection act of 1987, when one is determining the defect of an item several things will be taken into account; the marketing procedures, any warnings placed on the product, the time period since purchasing the product to the time the defect has occurred and the reasonable expectation of the product in use. In Susan’s and Sally’s case, the product was purchased just a few days, there were no markings or warning on the appliance that it would cause such damage and the reasonable expectation of the product is not to cause such damage as it has done and hence terms the damage caused as a defect.
This would lead that the users of the product, hair dryer to defend themselves in court of law. So in the determination if Susan and Sally are negligence one considers section 4. They both are said to be negligent in reference to section 4 subsection 1 part b; “that the person proceeded against did not at any time supply the product to another”; this part of the act was violated by the Susan. Susan and Sally similarly did not comply with the regulation placed by law, that is, the government safety standards.
Susan shall not receive any award as they played a role in the damage; Susan bought a defective product which is against the government safety standards. On the other hand, the other parties and property damaged are the ones set to receive compensation from the loss or damage that they have experienced, as they did not play any role in the product. This is effect to the act section 5 sub section 4 which states; “No damages shall be awarded to any person by virtue of this Part in respect of any loss of or damage to any property if the amount which would fall to be so awarded to that person, apart from this subsection and any liability for interest, does not exceed £275.” The retailer who sold the product will also have played a role in the damage caused, as he or she sold the product to Susan as well as accepting a faulty product without carefully inspecting it beforehand.
Christine and Sally are the victims who received damage to their bodies as well as damage to their property. They are hence set to receive compensation from the loss attributed to them. It is therefore consequential according to the Consumer Act of 1987 that Susan and the retailer are held liable for their negligence that resulted to damage to Christine and Sally are set to be compensated against Susan and the retailer, who are held liable for the damage.
