Business and Corporation Law Law of Property Act

Question: Discuss about the Business and Corporation Law for Law of Property Act. Answer: 1. In this case, a contract is made between Jack and Jane. Jane gave an invitation of treat with an offer to sell a Lotus Super 7 sports car in $25000. Jack accepted the offer. As Jane was going overseas, for that reason, he needed finance and he decided to sell the car in a fixed price which he decided. The offer and acceptance took place and the agreement took place. In this agreement all the elements of contract are present such as invitation of treat, offer, acceptance and consideration (Keenan and Riches, 2007). An enforceable agreement is balanced here because of the validity of the case but there are some issues which are solved with several rules. Those are discussed with ILAC method which is stated below. Issues An offer and acceptance was done and an agreement was made between Jane and Jack. The offeree (Jack) accepted the offer but problem arises here, because the contract is open ended agreement, where the offeror (Jane) has not mentioned the price, which he has offered. Only the market value is described here. It is necessary that proper offer rate is supposed to be described by the offeree but only the market value of the sports car is described here that is, $25000. So because of unclear description of the offer rate, problem arises in this contract. The market value of the sports car is described which is $25000. The problem arises because the offeror (Jane) wants to sell the car in the same market value but according to Uniform Commercial Code the market value rate cannot be applied on the second hand product because that is already used and sellers obligation arises because Jane has fixed wrong price of a second hand material and the condition of the product is also not described by him (McCormack, 2004). However, Jack (offeree) has accepted the offer but the price rate is improper here. The offeror (Jane) fixed $2500 of the sports car but the car is in very good condition and the market value of the car is too high $25000. In this case Jack has accepted the offer but Jane can run loss because she has not used proper price and the price which she has fixed is too low and she can run loss because of wrong style of contract. Laws As per Contract act of 1990 of section 9, it is required that the terms of the contract should be described in express term clearly which is not done in this case (Burrows, 2011). Consideration has done with proper Invitation of treat but as per section 7 of Contract act, breach of sales of good has taken place (Mahasneh, 2001). Even binding created because the price is not described here which an obligation of Consumer protection act As per Consumer protection act 1986, it is the right of the customer, Jack to know the price of the car which Jane has offered, but the price has not been stated clearly, so breach of consumer protection act has also taken place (UK consumer law, 2003). As per Article 2 of Uniform Commercial Code, breach of UCC has done because the seller has fixed wrong price of the car by fixing the price of the car similar to the market value which is legally not allowed (Kurkela and Turunen, 2010). Obligation under Sales of goods aroused in this case because of wrong fixation of time. Binding arises in the contract in this case. As per section 52 and section 54 of property act 1925, the legal rules of the act has been breached and section 12 and 15 of Sales of goods act has also been breached because of wrong price fixation has done by the offeror which the reason of his loss (Dixon, 2007). Application It is necessary that as per section 9 of Contract act the terms are followed by the offeror and offeree and the offeror (Jane) should clearly state the offer price. If the contract is done in valid way describing the value of the offer then the problem in the case will be solved (Burrows, 2011). It is required, that the rules of Uniform Commercial Codes should be followed by the offeror (Jane) before fixing the price of the sports car after getting idea about the market value of the car. If the regulation of sales of goods act with proper commercial code study is followed by the offeror then the problem occurred in this case can be solved. Remedy of the Sales of goods act and rules of property act should be followed by Jane before fixing the price of the car (Dixon, 2007). This process can help him to create a valid contract without running loss. Conclusion All this three cases had some issues which can be solved using various rules and methods. The rules of contract act, uniform commercial code, sales of goods act and property act are applied to solve the problems which aroused in the three cases and then a valid contract with proper rules are formed following the process of these acts. 2. An agreement has made between two parties, North Ocean Tankers and a ship builder for making tankers. The Ship builder is the manufacturer or seller and the North Ocean Tankers is the customer or buyer. As per US rules the contract between two parties were made. Construction was started after the agreement but conflict aroused when the currency of US devalued around 10% and the buyer and seller both started running loss. The manufacturer demanded US$3 million extra because of the devaluation and the customer had to agree on it but they started delay in giving the money to the seller. The problems are discussed and following various legal methods those are solved with ILAC method described below. Issues The agreement was valid which took place between the two parties but problem aroused when 10% currency was devalued by US government which negatively affected the economic condition of the economists of US including North Ocean tankers. The North Ocean tanker is the promisor who promised that, they will pay extra US$3 million to the manufacturer (promisee) as per his demand but because of their financial crisis they could not deliver money to the manufacturer in time and misrepresentation has done by the company to the seller by promising that they will provide the money in time (Kennedy, 2010). Even contract review has also not done here when the terms of the contract has been changed second time. After the delivery of the product till nine months the money was not been delivered to the seller and the seller was also running loss because of that. Both seller and buyer is running loss in this case. The buyer did misrepresentation with the seller in this case. laws The agreement made between the buyer and the seller, with the legal process of Federal arbitration act (Shimabukuro, 2002). It is necessary that, the contract should be reviewed by the rules of Contract review act. At first a contract had been made but later when the promise of extra money has been done, according to the contract review act the extra term should have written in the contract. Negotiation was done in valid way but according to English law. Breach of negotiation occurred because the promisor (North Ocean Tankers) who promised, that they will pay extra money to the promisee (Ship builder) for constructing the tankers but has not paid money after 9 months of delivery (Kennedy, 2010). As per misrepresentation act 1967, the seller can ask punitive damage from the buyer because they have did wrong promise or false statement of paying the money in time because of the urgent delivery (Misrepresentation Act, 2004). Misguidance or cheating has been done by North Ocean Tankers wi th the ship builder for which the seller can ask damages from the buyer. Application If the legal rules of Federal arbitration act were followed by the seller, then no conflict would have aroused. Some remedies can be used, through which the buyer can get rescued from the seller because the seller can sue the buyer because of violating the rules of federal arbitration act and for doing false promise. In this context, some remedies can be given such as Damages, Specific performances and Reinstitution Cancellation. The Ship builder can sue the North Ocean Tankers by reinstitution method. The North Ocean Company can follow the rules of Bankruptcy act 1966 with the help of US court (Commercial bankruptcy practice after the new act, 2006). As per this act, the company has to proof that they are in liquidated or bankrupt condition and running loss, so they need some specific time to pay the debt of the ship builder (seller). If they can give valid proof to the English court, then they give 6 months more, so that the buyer can stable their financial condition and pay the d ebt but obligation will arise if they are not able to provide proper prove then as per promise they has to give the money to the ship builder otherwise whether the builder can ask punitive damage or the court can declare the case innominate because more time is needed for the judgement from court considering the economic problem of both the defendant and plaintiff. Conclusion In this case, the issue is breach of negotiation and misrepresentation which the buyer did with the seller. The problem aroused because both the promisor and promisee were running economic loss. For that reason various legal rules has been applied and suggested to the buyer through which they can rescue from the breach of remedy but the buyer is bound to give the extra money to the seller in time following the legal rules. References Burrows, A. (2011), A casebook on contract, Oxford: Hart Pub. Commercial bankruptcy practice after the new act, (2006). [Mechanicsburg, Pa.] (5080 Ritter Rd., Mechanicsburg 17055-6903): Pennsylvania Bar Institute. Dixon, M. (2007), Contemporary perspectives on property, equity, and trusts law, Oxford [UK]: Oxford University Press. Keenan, D. and Riches, S. (2007), Business law, Harlow: Pearson Longman. Kennedy, G. (2010), Negotiation, London: Profile. Kurkela, M. and Turunen, S. (2010), Due process in international commercial arbitration, Oxford UK: Oxford University Press. Law of Property Act (1925) amendment, A bill to amend the provisions of the Law of Property Act, 1925, relating to leases for lives (2007), Cambridge [England]: Proquest LLC. Mahasneh, N. (2001), The seller's obligation of delivery and conformity under a contract for sale of goods. McCormack, G. (2004), Secured credit under English and American law, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Misrepresentation Act 1967 (2004). 3rd ed. London: H.M.S.O. Shimabukuro, J. (2002), The Federal Arbitration Act, [Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. UK consumer law. (2003), [London]: Dept. of Trade and Industry.