100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual Property (CLIP) – BPP Distinction Level Notes & Step-by-Step Exam Solutions R354,80   Add to cart

Summary

Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual Property (CLIP) – BPP Distinction Level Notes & Step-by-Step Exam Solutions

 11 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual P
  • Institution
  • Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual P

Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual Property (CLIP) – BPP Distinction Level Notes & Step-by-Step Exam Solutions What is the difference between unilateral and a bilateral contract? Bilateral - parties assume obligation to each other. Unilateral - 1 party makes an offer for an act t...

[Show more]

Preview 4 out of 60  pages

  • October 14, 2024
  • 60
  • 2024/2025
  • Summary
  • Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual P
  • Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law & Intellectual P
avatar-seller
Summary *2024* LPC Commercial Law
& Intellectual Property (CLIP) –
BPP Distinction Level Notes &
Step-by-Step Exam Solutions
What is the difference between unilateral and a bilateral contract?
Bilateral - parties assume obligation to each other.
Unilateral - 1 party makes an offer for an act to be performed by
other party/parties.
Relevant statute to put in answer
Sale of goods in a B2B context (governed by SGA 1979 and UCTA 1977) -
SGSA 1982
For contract terms and exemptions questions
There has to be a breakdown in relation to:

Contract
Terms
Breach
Condition/warranty/innominate term

Exemption clause
Incorporation
Construction
Statute

__ I should note
in order for the exemption term to apply, it has to make it through
the above 3 stages test
__
Is there a contract? B2B ( business to business ) /B2C( business to
consumer ) ; Sale of Goods/Services?

What are the (relevant) terms of the contract?
Implied: type of contract? (SGA/SGSA relevant?)
Express Terms?

Have any terms been breached?

Categorise the terms breached (condition/warranty/innominate) and
advise on

,available remedy

Analyse Exemption Clause(s) - ICU (Incorporation, Construction, UCTA)
Has it been incorporated within the contract?
Is it properly constructed so as to cover/defend against liability
for the breach?
Statutory Protection?
Express term:
Is the assistant's assurance that the pram is 'perfect for off-road
territory' an express term of the contract?

Relevant factors to consider:
Importance (Bannerman v White)
Timing (Routledge v Mckay)
Expertise (Oscar Chess v Williams, Dick Bentley v Harold Smith

the implied ones are in that statute
Express term: note
when it comes to the expressed terms point at the fact a shop should
have the expert and know the matter.mAYVE
Schawel v Reade, and same case for not letting him test in the shop
going through sales of act you go through 13 and 12 for what kindof
breach and then to terminate for 14, but if it already supplied as a
service or product then you cannot terminate
reasonable person s14(2A)
-
notesss
If white v John Warwick applies no need to through UCTA section 2 or
is it Alderslade v Hendon matter ?
--
did harm occurred like injury if such then the opposite as above
applies ( S 2 applies )
NOTES About sales of supplies of goods .
In terms of Sales of good s12 - 15, section 13 then it is a condition
or warranty of innominate term?
Section 13(1) A is a condition breach for example.

s15A: Slight and ONLY warranty = ONLY damages


s14(3) along with s14(6) = condition


--

,In term of supplies of good, I would he fallen below the reasonable
standard and explain and demonstrate how and what category is it all
the time innominate go to hong kong condition or warranty
Sales of goods legislation 1979
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54
notes
curtis overriding oral assuring that this misrep the clause ( if it's
the just the usual is it typical or not ) ( this is highly unusual
then it's a misrep ) sometime it is common and sometime not really
but either you can argue your way

also consider warranty and all

onerous clause the greather the risk then thee should notify.( For
instance when mentioning negligence it should be honorus clause
therefore this require greater alert and notification

Aldserslade v Hendon laundry in term of effective enough to exempt
negligence
Supply of sales good act
S 13 is the only relevant one
consider
section 14 of the sales good means your only entitled to damages

Implied Terms:

SGA (1979)
s14(2): goods must be of satisfactory quality
and
Implied Terms:

SGA s14(2) and 14(3) are both conditions under SGA s14(6) giving MDDC
the right of election

But note:
SGA s15A, if this is a trivial breach it will be unreasonable to
terminate the contract and MDDC will be entitled to damages only
Exemption clause
Incorporation
Construction
Statute

__ I should note

, in order for the exemption term to apply, it has to make it through
the above 3 stages test
go into by one by one
Terms exam notes
Terms :
14.2 AND 3 those are the terms in sales of good ( the satifsoty
quality )
Breach: 14.2a ,2b, d , 14(3)
--
Condition, warranty , innominate terms
For express terms use Schuler v wickman and then Possuard v Spiers ,
Betteni v Gye and hong kong fir Vkawaski test . ( The breach deprived
the party of the benefit of the entire contract, therefore this is a
breach and this allow the C right to the election , so they terminate
the contract and claim damages as a result.

Hochester v De la tour : An anticipatory breach of contract
This type of breach is one where a party expressly communicates that
they will not be carrying out a term or condition of the contract. (

Bunge v Tradex it was held performing a contract in a date agreed
upon was a condition and therefore this a breach he term ought to be
constructed as a condition
_
Section 14 (2) (3), also but consider 15 (a) which is warranty and
damages only.
-
short time applies and rush and pressure then onerous clause applies.
--
--
S13 IS INNOMINATE TERM HONG KOMG suuplY OF SALES OF GOOD 1982
Incorporation cases
L'Estrange v Graucob (1934)

Note to self: separate each notice or sig and decide .

--


Curtis v Chemical Cleaning ( fraud or misrepresentation then it is
not binding)


Parker v South Eastern Railway ( Reasonable notice)

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Allan100. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R354,80. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

75057 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now

Start selling
R354,80
  • (0)
  Buy now