A warranty is a promise, either expressed or implied, about the nature, quality, or performance of the goods. A statement about the value of goods or the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty. A buyer cannot hold a seller liable for sales talk. The proprietor stating that the cigars are “just like the great Cuban cigars’ could be decided by the courts that it is simply sales talk. When the contract is based in part on the understanding that the seller will supply goods according to a particular description or that the goods will be the same as the sample or a model, the seller is bound by an express warranty that the goods conform to the description, sample or model. The cigars Arthur bought for his father
Walker, Takem’s has the statutory law of contracts in his favor. In a contract, the seller and the purchaser have certain rights and obligations. Four basics must be met for a contract to be created (Chrisman, 2014). First, the offer has to be made. In the case at hand, the door-to-door salesperson made an offer of a computer to Ms. Walker. Second, the consideration has to be accepted. Ms. Walker accepted the offer to purchase a computer. The third step is capacity. The purchaser must be legally capable of entering into a contract; minors and the mentally incompetent are excluded in this case. Takem’s has given Ms. Walker the computer in exchange for her payments on her store account. Finally, the intention to enter into a contract has to be present. Ms. Walker signed a bill of sale, a security agreement, and a negotiable promissory note- which is an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time in the future. Though Takem’s has the advantage to combat her claims, Tommy needs to ensure that his salespeople have not made any false statements or misrepresentations to Ms. Walker as this could have legal implications for the store and against the contract (Vaccaro, 1987). Ms. Walker is legally bound by the contract she agreed to in exchange for the computer; however if there has been any misrepresentations or false statements Ms. Walker may be able, with legal assistance, to call the contract into question
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
The four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. The oral agreement between Sam and the chain store satisfies the agreement element of a contract definition because when the chain store offered to sell Sam 's invention at their stores, Sam accepted by agreeing to ship 1000 units in exchange. The second element of a contract, the “consideration of each party,” is satisfied because Sam and the chain store have something to give the other (1000 units of the invention in exchange for the exclusive sales of the product at their stores). The third element is “contractual capacity,” which may or may not be fulfilled since we do not know Sam 's age or whether
However prior to the modern understanding of Consumer Rights there was a understanding of Caveat Emptor – Buyer Beware –this has been a fundamental premise of consumer wellbeing prior to World War ‖ , relation to transactions, principle that the buyer purchases at his own risk in the absence of an express warranty in the contract . This common law rule assumes that buyers and sellers are in an equal bargaining position. However there has been evident change in consumer rights which have contributed to the precedence of using Caveat Emptor is no longer acceptable, apparent in the case ACCC v Hewlett Packard Australia (HP), illustrated that no longer can a company ...
v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Joc Oil is suing for the right to cure. This right happens between merchants when there has been an issue with items purchased, shipped, or received incorrectly. In this case Joc Oil has contracted to purchase low-sulfur oil from one refinery and to sell that oil to Edison. The oil arrives at Edison and is offloaded into Edison’s storage facility, only to find that the oil exceeds the low-sulfur requirements set in the contract. In past transactions Joc Oil has delivered nonconforming goods, or goods that do not meet the requirements under the contract. Edison has previously allowed Joc Oil to cure by allowing them to deliver conforming goods within the contracted time frame. “A cure may be attempted if the time for performance has not expired and the seller or lessor notifies the buyer or lessee of his or her intention to make a conforming delivery within the contract time” (Cheeseman, 2013). In this case we assume that the testing by Edison that reported the goods as nonconforming is accurate. There are some questions that would need to be answered in order to fully and accurately deliver a verdict on this case. The largest question is: Joc Oil has a cure for the shipment expected to arrive within two weeks, is this within the contract timeframe? If this question is a yes then Joc Oil has the rights to cure the issue at hand. If the answer is no, then a breach of contract may be in the works. Due to the fact that Joc Oil has been allowed to cure the issue in the past, there is a pattern of behavior by Edison, to allow Joc Oil the ability to cure. This would put Joc Oil in a position where there is no breach of contract. Joc Oil in this case has the ability and rights to cure for two reasons. The first being the past history, and the second being the right to cure as guaranteed under the
The movie The Insider literally provides a seeing glass perspective into the summation of ethical issues in businesses that directly affects the consumers physical and psychological health and the alleged methods that the tobacco company would resort to in order to safe guard itself from litigation and from disclosing information that will adversely affect the sale of its sole money making product yet is ultimately crucial to its customers understanding of the contents of the product that they are purchasing and its implications on their personal health.
The ingredients depend on the product that is being made; flavoring and other types of tobacco are some of the ingredients used. Computers in the factory keep track of the types of tobacco and the blends. Moreover, technology and machinery make the cigarettes and other various products. For example, when making cigarettes, the cutting of the tobacco, cigarette paper, and filters are fed continuously through a cigarette making machine (Van Willigin, Eastwood, 1998). Finally, the tobacco is packaged using packing machines. The machines put the products into brand packs, wrap the packs, and then put them into cartons and cases. The manufacturing sites distribute the tobacco to different companies to be sold, in the forms of cigarettes, snuff, cigars, and
The tobacco industry seems like a beneficial addition to our economy. It has basically been a socially acceptable business in the past because it brings jobs to our people and tax money to the government to redistribute; but consider the cost of tobacco related treatment, mortality and disability- it exceeds the benefit to the producer by two hundred billion dollars US. (4) Tobacco is a very profitable industry determined to grow despite government loss or public health. Its history has demonstrated how money can blind morals like an addiction that is never satisfied. Past lawsuits were mostly unsuccessful because the juries blamed the smoker even though the definition of criminal negligence fits the industry’s acts perfectly. Some may argue for the industry in the name of free enterprise but since they have had such a clear understanding of the dangers of their product it changes the understanding of their business tactics and motives. The success of the industry has merely been a reflection of its immoral practices. These practices have been observed through its use of the media in regards to children, the tests that used underage smokers, the use of revenue to avoid the law, the use of nicotine manipulation and the suppression of research.
For the case against Sears, the plaintiff had to prove that there was a breach of implied warranty of merchantability. While the evidence is a little ambiguous in this case it does support a breach of implied warranty against Sears. First the plaintiff determined that the fire was caused by the dryer by bringing in two expert witnesses. A fire expert testified that the fire started directly behind the dryer. In addition, an electrical systems expert testified that the electrical system of the dryer was the cause of the fire based on two reasons. First, two electrical wires were found within the dryer to be brittle and hard, which shows that the wires were subject to heat up to 2,000 degrees.
2. In this hypothetical, it seems unlikely that Alston could maintain a standing to sue against anyone of the cigarette manufacturers, individually or collectively. In order to do so, she would have to prove first that she suffered an injury in fact, and even then she would have to prove that the suffered harm is direct, concrete and individualized.
...by consumers. The human race needs to stop viewing the term “ethical” as a black-and-white fact and accept that often ethics is a reflection of opinion. From the business point of view, the production and distribution of tobacco products is ethical. Tobacco is a legal product and a desired one at that. If adults are legally allowed to consume a product and are eager to do so, then companies are going to provide it. From a humane perspective, the marketing and production of tobacco may be unethical; it knowingly harms its consumers and produces a product that purposefully addicts consumers. By asking the question “Are companies in the tobacco industry ethical or unethical?” we are being encouraged to view the topic as a black-and-white argument. The truth of the matter is that no matter which side people choose to argue; in the real world ethics has shades of gray.
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.
The rationale behind this argument is that the assumption of risk, which derives from the law of tort, indicates the individual should not benefit from his or her own acts that result in harm (Noel, 95). Conversely, one could argue that the manufacturers are selling tobacco for smoking, which means the inference of danger that amounts to an assumption of risk is questionable (i.e. the goods are legal, so there should not be a health punishment for smoking) (Dubois, 25). Nevertheless, whether an activity is legal or not, insurance will not cover all activities. For example, extreme sports are not co...
The tobacco industry is a very unethical industry, due to the long term effects of tobacco on humans. The industry also does not assess the ethical and social responsibility the best way that it should. There are many factors that make the industry unethical; some of the reasons are the way the cigarette companies around the world Advertise, the way governments and cigarette companies make a huge profit from the sales of cigarettes, and the labeling health risks. I do believe however that there is something that the tobacco companies can do to better their strategy as far as their ethics go. I think that they should, always be looking for the best interest on their consumers, as well as advertise strictly on the effects that the cigarettes and what the people are getting for their money.
For example if a buyer wants to purchase a drilling machine to drill holes in wood and seller is providing him the equipment. Here buyer is relying on the expertise and judgement of seller. But is later the machine is not able to perform them rule of caveat emptor will not apply.