|
Meccantile Law advise required
Asslamo alikum
I am preparing Khalid Mehmood cheema's Bussiness Law for mercantile Law Some one may please help in knowing the following. 1. Is complete book is required to be Prepared(as the book is not basically designed for CSS) or some Selective studies will work. If so what all can be left. 2. Any other book which can be help ful for praparation of exam. 3. Past papers Before 2001 if available may please be posted. 4. Any body having Mercantile Law in optional subjects may please Respond back to me for continues discussions please. I shall be grateful. |
Cheema's book contains some extra material also. For example leave the chepters of Common Career etc. This book does not cover company law and Arbitration law.
All other syllabus is covered in this book. I don't have the detail of which chapters to leave, at this time because I am not at home. You can contact me on mobile msging. 0304-4500886 Ok now I have book with me. Exclude the following portions of this book as these are not part of syllabus: Law of Carriage of Goods Law of Industrial Relations Law of Labour in Factories Law of Industrial and Commercial Employment Law of Payment of Wages Law of Workmen's Compansation Law of Social Security Law of Trusts Following topics are not included in this book, so you should consult other books for these topics. Company law Arbitration Law Thanks! |
Merchantile law
hi
i dont studied khalid mehmood cheemas book . during my foundation 2 of ICMA , I just uses 'merchantile & industrial laws' of ilmi series and i hve every intention of going through the same book for css. I found that it is written in a very easy language not using too much law jargons ,which I as a non law student I find difficult. u can check out this book if u like!. |
Don't OPT for Mercantile LAW!!!!
Hi :)
I am an LLB student and i have read Cheema's book.... It's good just as a "GUIDE" and may even have been good for the pattern of the PAST css Mercantile Law papers but not the recent ones..... because in the recent papers, probably the 2002-2004 ones, are all based on case-laws and unfortunately, Cheema's book fails to help in that regard.... plus while solving case-law questions, one has to give references of cases and it's a hell ova job.... also i think that the course for Mercantile Law is a bit too extensive.... I also intended to take it for my CSS but when i saw the questions regarding case-laws, i dropped the decision. These are the draw-backs which i think so r inherent in opting for ML.... If any one can remove these fears and apprehensions of mine, it would be really beneficial, not only for others, bt may be for me too :) |
opt for mercantile law
[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]i think karar u r a little apprehensive about the subject.
If one study it (and i mean study) with true understanding NOT memorizing, one can attempt all case studies regarding it. u have to give referances but it is not necessary that u give exact clause referance, only a referance to the heading of law is enough . so i think it is an easy subject. I personally hope that some case studies should be present in the paper coz one more positive thing about them is that in case studies you barely got zero . if U explain your point of view clearly u got some marks. remember there r a lot of answers to a simple case, they just check ur objectivity.[/FONT] |
To GreatMinds...!
Hi :)
Kaisay ho aap...:) I appreciate ur optimism n ur resolve to work hard for it.....:) But REMEMBER one thing......!!!! There's a hell ova difference b/w case-law questions and other questions.... In case-law questions, u HAVE to (I repeat U HAVE TO) quote cases.....!!!! n as for as the section no. is concerned, woh tau aap ko quote kernaa hi hota hai.......it's a MUST if u want to get good marks....! n plus this subject is lengthy too...! n thora bahut "Mercantile Law" tau yeh naacheese bhi jaanta hai.....aakhir teen saal LAW perhaa hai....:P Baaqi aap ki marzi... :) |
karrar plz plz I have opted for this subject, dont terrify me:wacko:
I have studied this subject in ICMA. I hope i will go through it. Do pray for me. Actually I think case studies r easy, I agree with all ur points but if u r given a situation and asked to give decision.................... u present the case, its important points and then ur decision aligning it with the concerned industrial law. thats all! you dont HAVE TO quote relevant cases but if u do u will certanily get good marks. I got this info from a reliable source. U r a law student and certainly more qualified than me in this subject. But u know i have no option , i have opted it. So apnee cheez ko to sab acha kehte hain na! |
:)
hahaha:laughing
n SOVVY tooo.....:( i shudn't have frightened u like this.....:) Waisay i liked the way u blurted out the real position.....girls seldom do that..:) chalein issi khushi mein, i think now it's ma "OBLIGATORY" obligation to guide u n tell u about some good books..... do go for Khalid Mahmood Cheema's Book...."Business Law" for Contract Act, Partnership Act, Negotiable Instruments Act etc..... another book is "Companies Ordinance" by Mansoor Law Book House....it's a very short yet comprehensive book..... n also if u want to quote some cases n want a good book, then study "Mercantile Law" by A G Chaudhry.... I hope u'll find all these three books very very relevant... u Take care :) |
My recommendation!
AOA!
Why don't you give a try to Mercantile law by an indian author "M.C KUCHHEL" (name pronounced exactly in the same way as an urdu word which means CRUSHING)! Its a comprehensive book on the subject with small page-size for easy reading and its pirated-edition is available for about Rs. 70/- at Prince Book Depot & Ilmi Book Centre (Urdu Bazar, LHR) and also at Waheed Book Depot (adjacent to ICMA Building, Lahore). I recommend this book because it has lots and lots of appropriate ILLUSTRATIONS (small case-studies) and even larger-original case-studies! Furthermore, as u will see (when u'll purchase it) that CHEEMA's M-Law and LUQMAN BAIG's M-Law are mere reproduction and editing of same matter from M.C Kucchel (which is considered as a master-piece). The reality is, that they both have COPIED from M.C Kuchhel and then have improved the understandability of the text with easy non-legal language and attractive presentation (with headings etc.). But the fact remains that M.C Kuchhel still contains 40% more in-depth material than the other two books & with proper legal language and hence, is my CHOICE #1. Should you have any further query concerning it, don't hesitate to ask me! take care! |
Hi
yaarrr!! you ppl have just confused me. I've just finalised the optional subjects in my mind for the CSS-2007 exams and M.Law is one of them. Though I've passed my M.Law in C.A Intermediate but the paper pattern was completely different than that of CSS. I'd the same apprehensions about the subject as does the Karrar(i.e: CSS paper is case study based,you got to produce references from law etc.) but I tamed myself up that.... c'mon you can do it. Now after viewing the discussion on this forum I've been confused again. So keeping in mind my background (that I've passed this subject in C.A Inter) can you please advise me; if I should go with this subject or not. I've got 5 months for the preparation of CSS-2007 so I got to decide as early as possible. Please reply as quickly as possible. |
@bitlovable
I'd recommend you to have a look at past papers of M. Law. after that you'll have a clear idea to opt it or not. Regards, |
I'd seen the past papers; questions don't look that tough.. but the problem is that in C.A, just your concept is checked; there is no need to produce the section numbers and references to the cases. but the discussion in this forum is indicating that in CSS you have to produce the section numbers and other references n that can be very cumbersome. This forum too is looking confused on this matter; some are saying that this thing matters and some are saying no.
|
CSS is not an examination of childern. its a competitive examination. u have to produce as well as u can. n beat whole the forum. just check ur book which u want to study. n write ur questions on this forum. in this way u may doing well n u also remember sections and cases references.
i m doing LL.B. my experience said that be positive in ur way. ok bye God may helps u. |
merchantile law cases !!!!
hy.. senior members plz tell me how to solve merchantile law cases.what is the pattern?? i have basic knowledge of the subject and got good marks in bcom papers.i think i can attempt the cases but i want to know the correct pattern..
desperately waiting 4 reply. |
[B]Facts:
Issue: Holding: Outcome: Rule: Rationale:[/B] |
Thank you so much for your reply to my query am glad that the reply is so quick i wasn`t expecting seriously,now i have one more request please solve any one case from past paper or any case by your own (but do mention it),according to the desired pattern then only i get an idea....headings alone couldn`t help me, i don`t know what to write in each heading :( to be more clear i need a sample so that i can study and prepare notes accordingly....
i have 5 books : 1: cheema 2: shukla 3: m.c khuchhel 4: I.R.Hashmi 5: luqman baiq are these books useful for the cases or do i need to buy some other book for case study as i didn`t find the pattern you have mentioned above,in these books... |
where are youuuuuu
[B]h3llllooooooo..em waiting 4 da reply.if yu dont want to explain any case n dont have much time so just explain me in few words what to write in each heading u have mentioned above..
i ll be thankful to yu:dry: [/B] |
@princessofhearts17
Can you allow me to post the examples 3 days before the M.Law paper? At present I don't have illustrations handy to post here. I will try to arrange before the paper becuase I have 6 days gape for that paper. I am sure I can arrange for the support of the members. For books: 1: cheema 2: shukla 3: m.c khuchhel 4: I.R.Hashmi 5: luqman baiq All the books are good enough. I rely on M.C. Shukla, Gogna, and Luqman Baig. But Cheema is very popular in candidates. I have not gone through it because of the lack of time. |
HI RAZ
of which paper are you talking about..?? i vll appear in 2010, i really didnt get your post..do u want to reply 3 dayz before that paper:0 if yes then it vll be tooooo late ..is there any other way to get a quick reply [COLOR=Teal][I](Later)[/I][/COLOR] [B]ok sorryy... i saw the date sheet of 2009 examz n completely got your msg..best of luck for your paper n do share your experience :) [/B] |
[QUOTE=Raz]@princessofhearts17
Can you allow me to post the examples 3 days before the M.Law paper? At present I don't have illustrations handy to post here. I will try to arrange before the paper becuase I have 6 days gape for that paper. I am sure I can arrange for the support of the members. [/QUOTE] Keeping my word: See these samples for guidance. [CENTER][B]Austin Instrument, Inc. v. Loral Corp. Court of Appeals of New York, 1971. 29 N.Y.2d 124, 324 N.Y.S.2d 22, 272 N.E.2d 533. (economic duress) Author: Judd Bean[/B][/CENTER] [U][B]Statement of Case:[/B][/U]*An action of breach of contract involving a radar components supplier against a radar supplier to the military for payment due upon the second subcontract. *An action of coercion and breach of contract involving a radar supplier to the military against a radar components supplier for damages to the aggregate of the price increases under the first subcontract on the ground of economic duress. [B][U]Facts:[/U][/B] (DURING VIETNAM) Loral got a contract to make some radar stuff for the Navy. They subcontracted to Austin to produce about half of some required precision gear components. When they got another Navy contract, Austin bid again and wanted to make all the components. Loral refused and said they would only be able to produce the components that they had the low bid on. Austin threatened to stop delivery on the components under the original subcontract unless they got to make all 40 components in the new contract and get a substantially higher price for all the past and present components. Loral looked for another supplier, but was eventually forced to acede to Austin’s demands because otherwise they wouldn’t have been able to meet the Navy’s deadline. Austin sued Loral to recover money still due on the second subcontract, but Loral also sued Austin for the amount of the price increases, claimed they were exacted illegally under duress and shouldn’t be enforced. The lower courts found for Austin, and Loral appealed to the Court of Appeals of New York. [B][U]Procedure:[/U][/B] The two actions were consolidated and, following a trial, the components supplier was awarded the sum it requested and the supplier to the military’s complaint was dismissed on the ground that it was not shown that “it could not have obtained the items in question from other sources in time to meet its commitment to the Navy under the first contract.” On appeal, they found that there was no disagreement of the facts, and that there were no serious questions of law. The difficulty lies in the application of the law to these facts. [U][B]Issue:[/B][/U] Whether a party is permitted to hold the other party to the terms of the original agreement in times of economic duress? [B][U]Holding:[/U][/B] No, The record demonstrates that the military supplier agreed to the price increases in consequence of the economic duress employed by the component supplier and that there were no reasonable alternatives, so they were forced to stay with that supplier! [B][U]Reasoning (Rules):[/U][/B] *Why doesn’t the court talk about 2-209? [B][U]Rule:[/U][/B] “A contract is voidable on the ground of duress when it is established that the party making the claim was forced to agree to it by means of a wrongful threat precluding the exercise of his free will.” The court finds that what happened to Loral is a “classic case” of economic duress. Austin’s actions left Loral with no choice because its government contract was so big and important. The court feels that Loral met its burden of showing that it couldn’t get the parts from another vendor. The court also feels Loral wasn’t wrong in waiting to sue until after the last delivery from Austin because they feared reprisals. The dissent argues that this is not a question of law but a question of fact and the factfinder should be given more deference. Furthermore, the dissent says that there was a factual issue as to whether there were alternative suppliers that Loral hadn’t used before. Also, Loral stated that they were rushing to close down the plant for vacation time. [B][U]Economic Duress Elements:[/U][/B] 1) The threat to withhold needed goods, unless….. 2) The defendant’s threat was made in bad faith. 3) No other practical alternatives for the plaintiff to obtain the goods from another source w/in a reasonable time. 4) The plaintiff’s remedy at law would not be adequate. (IN this case, Loral could have sued but they would have still had to obtain the gears elsewhere). [U][B]Disposition:[/B][/U] The order was modified with costs, and the military supplier’s claim was reversed in their favor. |
[CENTER][B]Cohen v. Clayton Coal Co.
Author: Livia Lin[/B][/CENTER] [B][U]Parties:[/U][/B] Plaintiff: Clayton Coal Co. (seller) Defendant: Cohen (buyer) [U][B]Facts:[/B][/U] On Aug 14th, 1926, plaintiff wrote a letter to defendant that they would enter into an agreement, providing that from Aug 14th, 1926 to Aug 14th, 1927, plaintiff supplied lump and slack coal to defendant and the price was fixed or depending on the market price. Defendant wrote down “Accepted” and signed and mailed the copied letter to plaintiff. But the plaintiff said they never received. After Aug 14th, 1926, defendants ordered both lump and slack coal from the plaintiff and that orders were filled at the prices mentioned in Aug 14th, 1926’s letter until on April 1927 when the defendants ordered slack coal and the plaintiff refused to fill the order. [B][U]Issue:[/U][/B] Whether the part performance can constitute a contract in this case? [U][B]Reasoning:[/B][/U] There was no formal acceptance of the contract. It is unfair to plaintiff if the market price goes up, defendant will keep the contract as compulsory while the market price goes down, defendant said there is no binding contract, which leaves plaintiff under the binding of the contract while defendant has right to select. So there is no want of mutuality and that kind of part performance did not constitute it a valid contract between the parties. [U][B]Holding:[/B][/U] Judgment is in favor of plaintiff. |
[CENTER][B]Acme Markets Inc. v. Federal Armored Express, Inc. (1994)
Author: Richard[/B][/CENTER] [B][U]P/S:[/U][/B] P appeals from summary judgment for D in Court of Common Pleas [B][U]Facts:[/U][/B] P grocery chain and D armored car service entered into a contract for armored car service and the agreement later was amended to provide for the timely reimbursement of service-related losses. P brought a breach of contract action after it alleged that a robber stole one of P’s cash bags in D possession and D refused to reimburse appellant. P claims that D was in possession of the money bag when it was stolen, and the fact that no receipt was issued was immaterial and D claims that although they were in possession, they were not responsible for the bags until “the bags have been accepted and receipted for by its employees”, according to paragraph 5 of the contract. [B][U]Issue:[/U][/B] Whether the court can excuse the non-occurrence of a condition, the issuing of a receipt, that is expressly stated in a contract. [B][U]Holding:[/U][/B] the receipt provision was a condition precedent, but it could be excused if it was not a material part of the contract. [B][U]Outcome: [/U][/B] REVERSED AND REMANDED, FOR P. The court remanded for a determination of the materiality of the receipt provision. The court also remanded to determine whether the forfeiture (not enforcing the receipt condition) would be disproportionate. Standard [B][U]Rule:[/U][/B] To the extent that the non-occurrence of a condition would cause disproportionate forfeiture, a court may excuse the non-occurrence of that condition unless its occurrence was a material part of the agreed exchange. (Restatement 229) [B][U]Rationale:[/U][/B] The P entered into the contract so that it would have a secure method to transfer their cash and checks. The requirement of the receipt was little more than an accounting device for the D, and did nothing to protect the P. To determine whether the fortitude is disproportionate is found in section 229, comment b: “In determining whether the forfeiture is "disproportionate," the court must weigh the extent of the forfeiture by the obligee against the importance to the obligor of the risk from which he sought to be protected and the degree to which that protection will be lost if the nonoccurrence of the condition is excused to the extent required to prevent forfeiture.” |
[CENTER][B]Acme Mills & Elevator Co. v. Johnson
141 Ky. 718 (1911) Author: MadFlava13[/B][/CENTER] [B][U]Facts:[/U][/B] In 1909, Johnson and Acme Mills entered into a contract which stated that Johnson would deliver 2,000 bushels of wheat at $1.03 per bushel (to be paid upon delivery) to Acme Mills. Acme would provide sacks to Johnson to transport the wheat from the thresher to the mill. Johnson failed to deliver the wheat, and Acme sued to recover damages of $320, including $80 for the value of the sacks provided to Johnson. Johnson admitted a breach of contract, but denied that Acme was damaged. In contracts of this type, the “vendee is entitled to damages against the vendor for a failure to comply and the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the property at the place and time of delivery.” [U][B]Procedure:[/B][/U] Acme Mills is suing Johnson for damages equal to the wheat that was never delivered and for the sacks provided for that delivery. The lower court ruled for Johnson, with the exception of an $80 judgment for the costs of the sacks. [B][U]Issue: [/U][/B]As the value of wheat fell below the value in the contract between the time of delivery and the time of the agreement, was Acme still damaged by the breach of contract? [B][U]Holding:[/U][/B] The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s ruling, stating that “the appellant [Acme Mills], instead of being damaged by the breach of the contract, was actually benefited to the extent of about three cents per bushel.” [B][U]Analysis:[/U][/B] The court decided that a breach of contract in a case involving the purchase and delivery of goods would only be recognized if the vendee was damaged. In essence, you can only sue for damages if the property is worth the same or more than you agreed to pay. In this case, Acme Mills would have been paying more than the wheat was worth, so the court ruled Acme was not damaged by failure to collect the wheat. (Johnson basically did them a favor by selling the wheat elsewhere). |
[CENTER][B]Agricultural Insurance Co. v. Constantine
Author: Livia Lin[/B][/CENTER] [B][U]Parties:[/U][/B] Plaintiff: Agricultural Insurance Co. Defendant: Constantine [U][B]Facts:[/B][/U] On May 7, 1942, at about 11:45 a.m., Mrs. Joseph Bova, Jr., parked her car at defendant’s parking lot, under the custody of defendant and received a ticket, which exempts defendant’s liability for loss or damage of cars, while Mrs. Bova denied she read the same or ever agreed to the terms printed on the ticket. At about 3 p.m. Mrs. Bova’s demanding the return of car was refused and on May 10, the car was delivered to the owner in a damaged condition. Plaintiff compensated Mrs. Bova $154.69 under the contract of insurance and sued defendant. [B][U]Issue:[/U][/B] Was the printed matter on the ticket a part of the contract of bailment? [U][B]Reasoning:[/B][/U] The court states that lacking the assent of bailor to the conditions printed on the ticket before delivering her car to the bailee, it cannot be a part of the contract of bailment. And bailor only considered the ticket is a token or receipt ostensibly for later identification of the bailed property, which cannot constitute a part of the contract. [U][B]Holding:[/B][/U] Judgment is for plaintiff. |
[CENTER][B]Anglia Television Ltd. v Reed
Ct of App. ENGLAND 1971 Civil Author:- Sam Biers[/B][/CENTER] [B][U]Facts: [/U][/B] ATL hired Reed to be the primary actor in a play that was going to be filmed. ATL agreed to pay Reed £1050, plus £100 a week for board, plus air fare, etc. This was subject to a permit issued from the Ministry of Labour which was received Sept. 2, 1968. Sept 3, 1968 Reed’s agent repudiated his contract because of another contract he was accepting. Reed was acting in another role in an American play. ATL accepted his repudiation and could not find a replacement, the show closed. [B][U]Issue: [/U][/B]Did the plaintiff rely upon the acceptance of the defendant to such an extent that the costs of both before and after the contract should be bore by the defendant’s breach? [B][U]Holding:[/U][/B] The Defendant is liable for the damages resulting from ATL’s reliance on his performance both before the contract and after. [B][U]Rule:[/U][/B] If a contract is broke and expenditures are wasted the breaching party must yield to the damages considered within the offer and acceptance. [B][U]Procedure:[/U][/B] Master at trial accepted defendant’s liability, but rejected his contention that the only expenditures owed were before not after the contract. Judgment for plaintiff £2,750 [B][U]Ct. Rationale:[/U][/B] The defendant entered into the contract and broke it. The expenditures of ATL were “within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was signed,” and as a result of the defendant’s breach the expenditures were wasted, therefore he owes the expenditures before and after the contract. |
[CENTER][B]Bailey v Ewing
Ct of App ID 671 P 2d 1099[1983] Author:- Sam Biers[/B][/CENTER] [B]Avoidance of the K : Mutual Mistake[/B] [B][U]Relevant Facts: [/U][/B]An estate representative conducted an auction sale of decedent’s property, but decided it would sell more quickly if broken into two pieces. One was i/d as lot 5 the other 6; 6 had a 20' strip of land adjoining it on the east side, five had the house thereupon. Df Ewing bought lot five but no satisfactory bid was received for lot 6 that day. The representative had indicated that the boundary was near the lilac bushes, but in fact was unknown and that nobody knew exactly where the boundary was. A week after the auction Pl bought the remaining lot. 2 yrs later Df began constructing a fence alongside the house. Pl had a survey completed and learned the property line was located w/i a foot of the house’s foundation, the eaves were on the Pl’s property. [B][U]Legal Issue(s): [/U][/B]Whether the tr ct erred in ruling that any mistake concerning the location of the boundary line was unilateral mistake? [B][U]Court’s Holding:[/U][/B] Yes, mutual mistake. [B][U]Procedure:[/U][/B] Tr ct found for Pl to quiet title, Df appealed; Ct of App Reversed and remanded. [B][U]Law or Rule(s):[/U][/B] A mistake is an unintentional act or omission arising from ignorance, surprise, or misplaced confidence. The mistake must be material or so substantial and fundamental as to defeat the object of the parties. A unilateral mistake is not normally grounds for the mistaken party. [B][U]Court Rationale:[/U][/B] A mutual mistake occurs when both parties, at the time of signing, share a misconception about a basic assumption or vital fact upon which they based their bargain. Some cts require the parties to have the same misconception about the same vital fact or assumption. MM also includes situations in which the parties labor under differing misconceptions as to the same basic assumption or vital fact. The assumption of fact must be the same; otherwise two unilateral mistakes, instead of one, would result. Both Erhardt and Ewing mistakenly believed the boundary line was further east than it was. Neither intended that the property sold as lot 5 would fail to include the whole house. There was an unintentional act arising from ignorance, Ewing and Erhardt made a MM regarding the location of the boundary line. The mere presence of a MM does not always afford relief. IF a party is aware that he has limited knowledge in respect to the facts related to the mistake, but treats his limited knowledge as sufficient, ~MM, but conscious ignorance and this bars relief. The extent of conscious ignorance depends upon the scope of the risk assumed. Neither party consciously assumed a risk that the line would run beneath the eaves of the house. PER may be admitted to show by reason of MM the parties’ intent was not expressed in K. PER can be used to show true intent. [B][U]Plaintiff’s Argument: [/U][/B]Df had knowledge at the time of sale that the boundary was unknown, and after Pl had a survey Df had encroached upon Pl’s property. [B][U]Defendant’s Argument:[/U][/B] Df and representative Ked under MM that the boundary was located other than where it was. |
[B]Note:
These case studies have been picked from foreign sources. Legal provisions may differ in our country. Don't rely on the rules which have been discussed in these case studies, just comprehend the method of these case studies. [/B] |
[B][CENTER]Daughtrey v. Ashe (1992)
Author: Richard[/CENTER][/B] [U][B]Facts: [/B][/U]P purchased a diamond necklace from the D jeweler for $15k; D classified the bracelet diamonds as v.v.s, which is one of the highest ratings for quality, but he only told the P that they were nice; D also told P that if he was not satisfied he would return the purchase price to the P; included in the sale was an appraisal form which listed the value of the bracelet at $25k; 4 years later P discovered the diamonds were not of v.v.s. quality; D offered to refund the purchase price, but P demanded a replacement for the bracelet [B][U]P/S:[/U][/B] The trial court found that the buyer had not proven that the appraisal was a term or condition of the sale nor a warranty, and denied relief for breach of warranty [B][U]Issue: [/U][/B]Whether the D’s statement of the grade of the diamonds is mere opinion or whether is was more, thus qualifying it as an express warranty. [B][U]Holding: [/U][/B]D’s description of the bracelet was more than opinion; it was intended to be a statement of fact. FOR P, reversed and remanded to determine the buyer’s damages. [B][U]Rule: [/U][/B] Uniform Commercial Code § 8.2-313(2) provides that it is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty [B][U]Rationale: [/U][/B]Court ruled that the D gave more than just his opinion on the value of the goods because he specifically described them as “H color and v.v.s. quality.” If one has superior knowledge and makes a statement about the goods sold and does not qualify the statement as his opinion, the statement will treated as a statement of fact. Therefore the description was an express warranty under Uniform Commercial Code § 8.2-313(2). Furthermore, the seller's affirmation of the diamonds' quality was a part of the basis of the bargain. [U][B]NOTES:[/B][/U] -- A statement made after the deal closes does not preclude that statement from constituting an express warranty as long as it is part of the basis for the bargain. -- This post-closing statement is considered to be modification, and under the U.C.C., requires no separate consideration. -- Courts do recognize the there is some room for seller’s to “talk up” their product without subsequently being held accountable under warranty theory -- This is referred to as sales puffery |
Thanks alot....
hi Raz..do we actually follow the same pattern????it is so horrible,is it mandatory to add headings and write so many things..:snor
and do let me know from where did you get these cases? well i did find a case and wants to share it with you.just have a look and guide me ,is following way of solving the case also correct or not.it is very simple and without any heading..and there are questions in past papers like this too.. [B]Question: Alvin runs a business selling expensive cars. Last Monday he mistakenly placed a notice on one car indicating that it was for sale for £5,000 when in fact its real price was £25,000. Bert later noticed the sign and, recognising what a bargain it was, immediately indicated to Alvin that he accepted the offer and would take the car for the indicated amount. Alvin, however, told Bert that there had been a mistake and that the true price of the car was £25,000. Bert insisted that he was entitled to get the car at the lower price, and when Alvin would not give it to him at that price Bert said that he would sue Alvin. After Bert had left, Alvin changed the price on the car to £25,000 and subsequently Cat came in and said she would like to buy the car, but that she would have to arrange finance. On Tuesday Del came by and offered Alvin the full £25,000 cash there and then and Alvin sold it to him. Required: Advise Alvin, Bert, Cat and Del as to their rights and liabilities in the law of contract.[/B] Answer: This question requires candidates to analyse the problem scenario from the perspective of contract law paying particular regard to the rules relating to: invitation to treat, offers, and option contracts. The scenario involves three distinct cases which should be dealt with in turn in applying the following rules of contract law. Alvin and Bert The price notice on the car did not constitute a legal offer, it was merely an invitation to treat. As such it is not an offer to sell but merely an invitation to others to make offers. The point of this is that the person extending the invitation is not bound to accept any offers made to them as may be seen in Fisher v Bell (1961) in which it was held that having switch-blade knives in the window of a shop was not the same as offering them for sale. Consequently Bert is not in a position to sue Alvin. Alvin and Cat An offeror may withdraw their offer at any time before it has been accepted and once revoked it is no longer open to the offeree to accept the original offer. Also a promise to keep an offer open is only binding where there is a separate contract to that effect. This is known as an option contract, and the offeree must provide additional consideration for the promise to keep the offer open. If not, then the offeror can simply withdraw the offer under the normal rules relating to revocation of offers. As Cat did not provide any consideration to form an option contract, Alvin is not bound to wait for her to return and can sell the car to anyone else if he so chooses. Alvin and Del This is a perfectly ordinary contract. The fact that Alvin had previously contracted not to sell it, does not affect Del and he is entitled to take good title to the car. |
[QUOTE=princessofhearts17]hi Raz..do we actually follow the same pattern????it is so horrible,is it mandatory to add headings and write so many things..:snor
and do let me know from where did you get these cases? well i did find a case and wants to share it with you.just have a look and guide me ,is following way of solving the case also correct or not.it is very simple and without any heading..and there are questions in past papers like this too.. [/QUOTE] Well, there is no hard and fast rule for the pattern of the answer but we strive our best to produce the more refined and valuable pattern. It would be better to answer in heading-wise style but it is not mandatory. If you can explain clearly and correctly your stance with valid arguments without headings then it is ok. Besides, the format which I have presented here is just specimen, and can't be applied in each case. Headings / parts of the answer may vary from case to case. Presentation is an added advantage but concentration should on the correct solution. Presentation of the paper gets secondary importance. Relevance and correctness prevail. I have posted the link in this F group "Case studies" where you can study other related cases too. Hope I have answered your query. |
books
[QUOTE=Raz]@princessofhearts17
Can you allow me to post the examples 3 days before the M.Law paper? At present I don't have illustrations handy to post here. I will try to arrange before the paper becuase I have 6 days gape for that paper. I am sure I can arrange for the support of the members. For books: 1: cheema 2: shukla 3: m.c khuchhel 4: I.R.Hashmi 5: luqman baiq All the books are good enough. I rely on M.C. Shukla, Gogna, and Luqman Baig. But Cheema is very popular in candidates. I have not gone through it because of the lack of time.[/QUOTE] i have commerical law book of RR Gupta for mercantile law is that book is right choice for the preperations it has al the topics mentioned in course outline or i should also look for other books please an urgent reply is needed |
[quote=sajjadali350]i have commerical law book of [B]RR Gupta [/B]for mercantile law
is that book is right choice for the preperations it has al the topics mentioned in course outline or i should also look for other books please an urgent reply is needed[/quote] Dear Sajjad Ali: Gupta is easy to understand and a short book but for comprehensive study you need to utilize one more book from the list mentioned in our previous posts. I suggest you Luqman Baig along with Gupta. Regards |
[quote=sajjadali350]i have commerical law book of RR Gupta for mercantile law
is that book is right choice for the preperations it has al the topics mentioned in course outline or i should also look for other books please an urgent reply is needed[/quote] I studied Gupta way back in 1998/1999 that book doesn't cover: 1) Insurance Act 2) Companies Ordinance Portion 3) I guess Arbitration Act as well For these topics you need to get help from relevant sources. You can find some of these topics in this forum under M Law threads. |
thanks for ur better advise i will also find the other book
:)) |
| 08:02 PM (GMT +5) |
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.