AF108 Introduction To Law For Commerce Essay

Questions:

1. Did the property and the risk indeed pass to Melissa, Smith and Misha once the goods were left at CTF’s delivery area?
2. What remedies are available for Melissa and Misha?
3. Is Delivery Fiji liable to Melissa, Smith or Misha?
4. What remedies and defences will Delivery Fiji advance in its favour?
5. What arguments will CTF advance in its favour to dispute the various allegations against them?
6. Can CTF be exempted from all liabilities or are they liable to the buyers for their loss.
7. What is Smith’s position in this respect taking into consideration his insolvency?
8. Are CTF and Delivery Fiji engaged in deceptive and misleading commercial practice?

Answers:

Did the property and the risk indeed pass to Melissa, Smith and Misha once the goods were left at CTF’s delivery area?

According to section 22 of the Fiji risk law, a good remains at the seller’s risk until the property is transferred according to law. According to this case, the transfer of property as agreed by the contract, is supposed to happen after the goods are labeled and ownership changed from CTF to Melissa, Smith and Misha. At exactly 9:05 am when the three boxes were delivered and waiting to be picked by the truck, the delivery ownership of the goods had changed to the three buyers. It was, therefore, buyers’ duty to follow-up the progress of the truck and how their goods were going to be delivered. According to the same section 22 of the Fiji commercial law, whether the goods have been delivered or not, they are to be taken care of by the buyer once ownership has changed. Ownership had changed when the three goods were labelled with the names of the buyers which happened on 30th May at 9:00 a.m. At this point, transference of both risk and ownership had happened. It is, therefore, true to note that at the delivery point, risks had been transferred from CTF to the three buyers.

What remedies are available for Melissa and Misha

The case of Melissa and Misha should be considered under section 31 of the commercial law of Fiji. The buyers have the audacity to reject the goods if they think it is not satisfying to what they ordered. In this case, according the contractual terms the buyer, Melissa and Misha have gotten goods that are less than what they contracted. Melissa ordered for blue tiles but was delivered purple colored cartons with tiles that she did not order for. This ground is enough to reject the goods with reference to section 31 of the commercial law.

Under the sale of goods Act, there are conditions to be met in the sale of goods and contracts. The implied terms include good correspondence with description, fit for the purpose and match the exact sample that was supposed to be delivered. In lieu of this act, it is evident that the goods are not in correspondence with what both buyers requested. They, therefore, at liberty to reject the products blaming the CTF Company of not corresponding and respecting the contract.

Is Delivery Fiji liable to Melissa, Smith or Misha?

According to section 52 of the Fiji sales of goods act, under commercial, it is logical to complain that delivery Fiji is liable to Melissa, Smith and Misha. It is true that the delivery of the goods was in the possession of the three buyer in this case. They should, therefore, accept all the risks that come with the delivery services. At this point, section 31 delivery Fiji is not liable. Their liability applies to section 51 of the Act. The Act states that, when the seller or the deliverer, wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may take action against the seller for the damages for non-delivery. Neglect of duty by the security officer of CTF, who is attending to a relative, at the time the goods are getting lost, is evident enough to make the delivery company liable to the three buyers.

The company delivery Fiji is liable to the three buyers based on the evidence produced in section 31 of the sales ACT good. The buyer is responsible for the risk after delivery. The goods at the delivery area are already transferred to the buyers. They should, therefore, organize on how these goods are delivered but Melissa was willing to do it at a cheaper cost. The CTF and the Fiji delivery, however, deny this contractual term. Having paid for the delivery, Delivery Fiji should be responsible for all the delivery of the goods. However, they have seemingly failed and thus Delivery Fiji is liable to all the three buyers.

What remedies and defenses will Delivery Fiji advance in its favors?

All the sales and delivery were done according to the agreed contract involving all the parties. It is from the contract that the Delivery Fiji received the instructions to deliver The contract agreement has a clause which exempts itself from any forms of losses once the goods are safely delivered. The acknowledgement of this clause through Melissa signing the document is evidence enough to bail Delivery Fiji out of the case as a method defending themselves.

According to section 30 of the sales of good Act, commercial law, depending on the contract, possession of the goods should by the seller until the delivery is made to the buyer. In this case, at 9:05 am, when the goods were at the delivery area, they were in possession of the CTF and not Delivery Fiji. When the intruder came in and stole one of the boxes, CTF should take responsibility and not Delivery Fiji.

What arguments will CTF advance in its favour to dispute the various allegations against them

CTF will definitely use the sales of goods Act 22 to their defense. The good were already at the delivery area and sealed according to the instructions of the buyer. So according to CTF the goods had already been delivered and thus was the transfer or risk. With reference to section 22, the goods were at the buyer’s risk and not the sellers risk. What according to the Act is referred to as Risk prima facie passes with property.

In defense of their employee, they would say, it was right for the employee to engage the relative since at that point the property was no longer at the jurisdiction of the CTF having considered it delivered.

Did the property and the risk indeed pass to Melissa, Smith and Misha once the goods were left at CTF’s delivery area?

CTF are liable to all the three buyers for their losses. Legally the goods had not been delivered. According to section 32 of the sales of goods act, the goods are only delivered when the goods have reach the residential area of the buyer which the intended goods never reached.

It is due to one of the employee of the CTF, that one box of tiles was stolen. Due to such neglect of duty that lead to wrong property delivery and loss of one, the CTF is responsible for the loss of the three clients.

When Melissa requested for her own means and they rejected they remain the ones responsible and therefore should accept and look for a quick remedy.

What is Smith’s position in this respect taking into consideration his insolvency

When only agreed payment of the delivered goods and the price are concurrent conditions. The seller should be paid immediately after delivering the good the buyer so that the exchange between the two is mutual. Thus in respect of section 29 of the sales of goods ACT. Since the delivery is done but Smith has been declared bankrupt, it is legal for CTF to find a way of getting their products back, even before the installment cash is paid all to the company. Smith will therefore have to return the delivery or pay for the goods, but since he has been declared bankrupt according to the law he has to return the goods.

Are CTF and Delivery Fiji engaged in deceptive and misleading commercial practice

CTF and delivery Fiji are not engaged in deceptive and misleading commercial practice. All the practices of the two companies are operational within commercial law. They consider all the steps of sales of good from the first to the last. However, this case is only as a simple result of negligence of duty and risk factors like the thief and Smiths bankruptcy. It is logical therefore to note that the two companies operate very well but they had a bad day in office.

References

Ahmadu, M. L., & Hughes, R. (2017). Commercial Law and Practice in the South Pacific. Routledge-Cavendish.

Alt, K. T., & Pratt, K. M. (2014). Antitrust and Consumer Laws-Integral to All Business and Legal Practice. Colo. Law., 43, 17.

Bakshi, P. M. (2016). 41_The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

Commonwealth Secretariat. (2017). Commercial and company law and sustainable development. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 43(3-4), 362-402.

Davies, I. (2017). Retention of Title clauses in Sale of goods Contracts in Europe. Routledge.

Devi, P. U. M., & Rao, B. S. (2016). Consumer Protection Awareness-Role of Education.

Duffy, J. F., & Hynes, R. (2016). Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual Property. Va. L. Rev., 102, 1.

Howells, G., & Weatherill, S. (2017). Consumer protection law. Routledge.

Johnson, P. F. (2014). Purchasing and supply management. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Lista, A. (2016). International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms. Informa Law from Routledge.

Ma?ko, R. (2016). Contracts for online and other distance sales of goods.

Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Smits, J. (2016). New European Union Proposals for Distance Sales and Digital Contents Contracts: Fit for Purpose?.

Tushnet, M. (2017). Comparative constitutional law. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law.

How to cite this essay: