English Jurisdiction Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

English Jurisdiction - Case Study Example May, furthermore, complained that she had suffered from emotional anguish after the incident. Consequently, May Donoghue filed an action suit against the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson, in April of 1929 seeking 500 as payment for the damages inflicted as a result of drinking the ginger beer (1 page 563 Court Records).1 The consequences of the suit - Donoghue v Stevenson - and the events which ensued later still stand as one of the most prominent cases in United Kingdom's legal history and changed the course of consumer law perpetually, as the decision of the House of Lords, UK's supreme appeals court, established a very significant foundation of the delict law not just in Scotland but also all over the world. The House of Lords affirmed that scope of their judgment principles covered English Law as well (page 564 Court Records).2 Donoghue lodged her case in Court of Session in 1929 with the help of Walter Leechman who at that time was already familiar with the previous rulings of the courts with regards manufacturers' liability to consumers in Scotland (Mullen v. A.G. Barr & Co. 1929 S.C. 461). This previous rulings were the main basis of the Scotland's delict law which affirmed that manufacturers have no obligations to or contractual relationship with an individual if she did not pay for the consumer item. Thus May Donoghue could not claim damages or file suit against the manufacturer under the Scottish delict law. The courts ruled twice removing, Stevenson, the manufacturer of the ginger beer, of any legal responsibility citing the courts previous ruling in Mullen v A.G. Barr. Donohue and her lawyer sought appeals from the House of Lords which overturned the decisions of the previous courts and overruled Mullen v. Barr Co., Ld., and M'Gowan v. Barr Co., Ld., 1929 S. C. 461. The House of Lords argued that the manufacturer is liable to the consumer when he places an item for sale for consumption purposes without aptly examining the product. Care should be practiced in ensuring that the article or item sold to the consumer 'is not injurious to health.' Hence the manufacturer is liable to the appellant as he put upon his product, the ginger beer - designed in such a way that consumers would not be able to determine what was inside the bottle. The House of Lords in this ruling has asserted that responsibility rested upon the manufacturer of the ginger beer as, whether the design of the bottle which made it difficult for the consumers to inspect its content, was done intentionally or unintentionally, the rights of the consumers must be protected. The issue, acco rding to the court, was not the contention that the manufacturers committed fraud but the manufacturer's apparent negligence (page 565 Court Records). Lord Bruckmaster argued that the principles the courts gleaned from the appeal is that, the manufacturer, or anyone who confers another service of work as for instance, the repairer, 'owes a duty to any person by whom the article is lawfully used to see that the it has been carefully constructed.' (page 578 Court Records) However, Buckmaster also notes that (page 578 Court Records), that this duty, outside the contractual obligation of the manufacturer, is very broad and covers every item, because this obligation can be extended to every person

Introduction to Business Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Introduction to Business Law - Essay Example In matters concerning offer and acceptance, communication is of paramount importance. In the given case, Eddie telephoned Adele on Monday to ask for quote for the delivery of 12 wild boar piglets to the Eagle Pub. This is not an offer. It is a mere inquiry and it does not amount to an offer. Adele informed Eddie that the piglets would cost ?1,100 each and would be delivered on Thursday morning at a cost of ?150. This is again just a piece of information and not an offer. Eddie was satisfied with the price but wanted the delivery to be made on Wednesday. From the facts, the conduct of Eddie is such that it can be construed that this was an offer. Adele promised to give an answer on the next morning via fax. She sent a fax next morning confirming that the delivery was possible on Wednesday and it would cost ?13,350 in total. According to the given facts, Eddie was not in his office on Tuesday morning. If the courts are convinced that the aforementioned offer by Eddie was a valid offer, his absence from his office on Tuesday morning would be immaterial. A question can be raised whether Adele’s fax’s communication to Jane was enough. It would also be immaterial. It is because of the establishment of ‘Postal Rule’. In Adams v Lindsell 1818 EWHC KB J59, the defendants offered the plaintiffs through a letter to sell some fleeces of wool and asked them to answer via post. The plaintiffs received the letter late due to misdirection but posted their acceptance right away. Before their acceptance could reach the defendants, the defendants contracted with another party to sell the wool. Almost a similar scenario was encountered in Henthorn v Fraser 1892 2 Ch 27. The courts, therefore, specified a definite time of acceptance via post. The acceptance of an offer would be deemed to have been made when the letter of acceptance is posted and is out of the power of the offeree. This rule can also be stretched to communications with fax. Adele’s acceptance was made when she sent the fax to Eddie’s office. It does not matter whether Eddie saw the fax or not. Since the offer was accepted, the object was legal, both parties had consideration and there was an intention to create legal relations, a contract had formed and was legally binding on both the parties. It had formed at the time when the acceptance was made. Eddie is wrong in his thinking that he owes nothing to Adele. His contract with Peter is a breach of contract with Adele. He can be sued for damages by Adele for his breach of contract. The damages would amount to a sum that puts Adele in such a financial position in which she would have been if there was no breach by Eddie. However, Adele would not be able to recover the loss of ?400. It is because the loss was too remote. In Hadley v Baxendale 1854 9 Exch 341, the defendant contracted to take the plaintiff’s mill shaft to London where it was to be used as a model to build a new one. Due to defendantà ¢â‚¬â„¢s fault, the shaft was returned late and it caused the plaintiff to lose profits. The plaintiff sued to recover damages for loss of profits. It was held that the loss caused was too remote and it could not have been recovered. Therefore, by the application of above case, Eddie would not have to compensate Adele for lost profits of ?400. Answer 2 In the given case, Adele went to Bambi Stores Ltd to purchase some animal feed. She was absolutely unalarmed and unwarned when she was hit by a fork-lift truck driven by