Providing Advice to Toys4U on the Possible Legal Implications of the Situations with Mr Sharma - Case Study Example

Introduction Business law is really an interesting aspect of overall business environment as it indicates the really complicated dimensions of business which may be unknown to the businesses. The case scenarios given in the case study apparently focus on three important issues i.e. contract between two parties, sale of goods and employment. However, there are various laws that are at play when exploring the situations given in the case study including a reference to be made to laws such as sale of goods act, The Sale and Supply of Goods to consumers Regulations 2002, contract act as well as employment laws. The basic purpose of this report is to explore the legal implications of the various events described in the given case study and how they can create legal complications for the Toys4U. A closer look at the events described in the case will indicate that the Toys4U may face legal complications in terms of the violation of the sales of good act as well as the transaction between the two companies may involve few of the regulations outlined in the contract act and finally the employment laws will also be explored and applied to understand as to what actions can Amanda take against the company and how company basically plan its actions to cope with this. This report will attempt to provide advice to Toys4U on the possible legal implications of the situations described in the case study by discussing the whole situation in the light of prevailing laws and practices. Situation-A This situation involves three parties to the whole situation i.e. Toys4U, Megastores plc and Mr. Sharma. Contract under English Law is considered as an agreement and is vital to the conduct of overall business transactions. (Smith & Keena, 2008). In the given situation, Toys4U Ltd and Megastore Plc entered into contract with each other which was legally finding on each party. Under Section 2(1) of the sales and supply of goods act 1979, a contract for sales occurs when one person agrees to transfer the ownership for money consideration1. This definition therefore requires that in order to conclude a sales contract, it is critical important that it must involve a money consideration and there must be transfer of ownership of the property from one person to another. As per the transaction, Megastore was required to supply 10 Polaris missiles to Toys4U against a consideration. As per Sales of Goods Act, whenever goods are sold, they must confirm to the contract and they must be in accordance with the specifications given in the contract besides confirming to a satisfactory quality.2 It is important to note that goods are considered as of satisfactory quality, if an ordinary and reasonable person would recognize them as satisfactory. 3Further, satisfactory quality, according to Sales of Goods Act includes fitness for the purpose, freedom from the defects of minor nature as well as they must be durable and safe. Given the above considerations of law into account, it is interesting to note that few of the injections of the law may directly hurt the Megastore because the goods that were offered for sale to the firm did not complied with some of the above conditions.4 Firstly, the goods arrived in broken condition which may already entail that one party may be responsible for this. However, it is also critical to note that the terms of the contract are also important in this situation. If the contract agreement specifically permits that the buyer will be responsible for the damage that may occur during the transit, than seller may not have any remedy available against the seller however, if agreement is silent in this regard, law states that it is the seller who is responsible for ensuring that goods confirm to the contract. 5Secondly, it is also unclear as to whether the sale has been made on the basis of the assumption that sale will be concluded once goods leave the premises of the seller or sale will be concluded when goods are actually received by the buyer. Assuming that the sales contract concluded when goods were actually delivered to the buyer at its doorsteps, it than becomes clear that the responsibility of seller for delivering the goods in their best quality as well as according to the contract.6 Sales of goods act also entitles a buyer to claim the money back after reasonable period of time which is though clearly defined in the law. Than there is also a question of inherent fault as according to Law, inherent fault is a fault that is not known at the time of purchase. This therefore requires that MegaStore Plc may be unaware of the inherent faults in the product delivered by the Chinese manufacturer. Considering the above situation, there are two important considerations for the firm i.e. one if it receives any claims from Mr. Sharma, than what options are left with them to get an insight into the legal position of the firm. Secondly, what legal remedies are available to the firm against the Megastore Plc because they are the actual sellers in this transaction? UK Law is very clear in terms of the negligence on the part of the manufacturer as in Steer v Durable Rubber Co Ltd (1958), it was ruled by the court of appeal that it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to prove that there was no negligence on his part. (Kelly, Homes,2002). However, in this situation buyer has not directly purchased the good from a manufacturer but rather from the re-seller. In such situation, it therefore becomes more critical as to whether a seller can be ultimately held responsible for the acts committed by the manufacturer. In such situation a possible arises that Mr. Sharma can sue the firm for delivering a product which was not safe. Under the existing contract laws and sales of goods act, firm may be required to pay off the damages however, firm is entitled to claim the same damages from the Megastore Plc because it becomes the responsibility of the actual seller to ensure that good are free from any inherent fault and are of reasonable quality. Some of the remedies available under The Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2000 allow a buyer to demand either the full refund or the partial refund for the faulty products. There are also provisions for bearing the cost of injury to the health of a person as a result of the use of any faulty product. In the first six months of the sale, the proof of the burden lies on the retailer that goods delivered were according to the contract.7 Instances where customer suffered any kind of loss shall be referred back to the seller within six months because after this period, the responsibility of the proof that goods delivered are actual in accordance with the contract lies with that of the consumer.(Abbot, Pendlebury & Wardman,2007). While summing up the whole situation, it becomes clear that the firm has to pay the damages in actual for any loss incurred to the customers provided they are rightly claimed by the customers. However, a firm can further claim the damages from the producer which actually sold it to the firm because it becomes the responsibility of the seller to ensure that the goods delivered are actually are in accordance with the contract and confirm with a certain quality. It is also the responsibility of the seller to inform the consumer of any faults in the product and if at time of purchasing the product customer knows about the fault, he or she may not b able to claim any damages from the seller. However, if customer has not been informed about the defects in the product, it than becomes the responsibility of the firm to pay off the damages arising as a result of any loss to the health or property of the consumer. Second Situation Equality and diversity are two terms that are often considered as most important when interviewing the employees for any potential job position. In this given situation wherein Amanda has been rejected for a given advertised position indicating the reasons that she does not have the right attributes for the job. In such scenario, obvious actions by Amanda may include referring the court for discrimination charges against the firm as well as charging the firm with bias in the selection process. It is critical to note that the laws on the discrimination against any particular sex in the employment is of critical importance for any firm as under the regulations there are certain important restrictions on the firms to engage into such kind of behavior. The employment equality (sexual orientation) regulations 2003 specifically prohibit firms to discriminate in employment based on the sexual orientation of a person.8 Regulation 6 disallows a person to refuse unemployment to any person based on the sex of the individual. This regulation however clearly indicates that an employer does deliberately not offering the employment as well as refusing the employment to a person based on the sex. Sexual orientation also outline the perceptions by the employer as to whether an applicant may be of a particular sex orientation such as bi-sexual or homosexual and discriminate on the basis of this fact. The law strictly prohibits the employers to discriminate on the basis of any such sexual orientation. This regulation however does not mention as to how one can prove the willful refusal of offering the employment based on the employer’s perception about the sexual orientation of an employee. The doctrine of vicarious liability is liable to the third parties for the civil wrongs that they may have committed during the course of employing a person. Under this doctrine, employees and potential candidates therefore can take refuge and claim that discrimination has been made against them during the process of recruitment. Under this doctrine, before taking any action against the employer, it is really critical to establish a real nexus between the employer’s intention for not offering the job and the suitability of the candidate for the job on hand.(Lewis & Sargeant,2004). Since in the case of Amanda, she has only been informed that she does not possess the “right attributes” therefore Amanda may hold the right for asking the firm to further elaborate upon the exact definition of “right attributes” and what sorts of attributes are required for the job. The question also arises as to whether the firm, in its advertisement for the job rightfully mentioned the attributes that a candidate for the job must posses. The indirect discrimination is a term defined to include discrimination against particular sex wherein almost same conditions to both the sexes however, due to the circumstances, it may be difficult for the employer to offer job to one sex due to the requirements of the job.(Nairns,2002). It is therefore critical to note that if Amanda is able to make a claim in the court of law that there has been an indirect discrimination against her, the firm may be liable for certain damages in such case. However, if the firm is able to prove that sex was the genuine occupational qualification for the job than firm may get protection against any claims to be made by the Amanda. Similarly, positive discrimination can also be one of the options available to the firm to defend it against the claims to be made by Amanda. If firm is able to prove that under the law it was required to employ a person belonging to certain sex, color, race or religious association than the firm may not be held liable as it acted in accordance with the law. The above discussion therefore indicate that a firm may be held liable under certain conditions however, if the firm is able to prove that its actions were either in compliance with the law, in case of positive discrimination, or particular sex was genuine occupational requirement for the job than Amanda’s claims may not create significant legal risks for the firm References 1. Abbot, K Pendlbury, N & Wardman, K (2007) Business Law. 8th ed. London: Cengage Learning EMEA. 2. ALIX,A (2008) Law for Business Students, Pitman Publishing 3. Kelly, D Holmes, A & Hayward, R (2005) Business law. 5th ed. London: Routledge Cavendish. 4. Lewis, D & Sargeant, M (2004) Essentials of Employment Law. 8th ed. London: CIPD Publishing. 5. Nairns,J (2008) Employment Law for Business Students, Pearson 6. Smith and Keenan (2008), Law for Business, 12th ed, Pearson Publishing Read More