LLB British Law | Good Grade Guarantee!
LLB British Law Solved
Referencing Styles : Oxford | Pages : 34
Part 1 – Case AnalysisRead the case of Medivance Instruments Ltd v Gaslane Pipework ServicesLtd and another  All ER (D) 111 (Apr) and using this case onlyanswer the questions below.1. What judges heard this case in the Court of Appeal? (1 mark)2. Who was the appellant and who were the two respondents in the Court ofAppeal? (2 marks)3. What is the difference between the test of merchantable quality in s.14(2)Sale of Goods Act and the test of fitness for purpose in s.14(3)? (2 marks)4. Did s.14 of the Sale of Goods Act apply to Vulcana? Give reasons for youranswer. (2 marks)5. Why did Neuberger J limit the appeal to the issues around s.14 and thetortious equivalent? (2 marks)6. According to the appellant, why was the heater not of merchantable qualityand/or fit for purpose? (2 marks)7. What effect would it have on business if a claim under s.14 was won everytime it was shown that the product in question could have been made safer?(2 marks)8. Did the judges believe that a different heater should have been supplied tothe appellant? Give reasons for your answer. (3 marks)9. Why did Neuberger J rely on the case of Wright v Dunlop (1973) 7 KIR 255?(2 marks)10. According to Mr Brown, why might it be dangerous to always allow a seller to avoid liability through warning the buyer of the defect? (2 marks)11. Why did Neuberger J refer to the cases of Holmes v Ashford and Hodge & Sons v Anglo American Oil Co.? (1 mark)12. Which of the following were material facts in the case? (4 marks)a. If the appellant had known that there were heaters with thermostat devices included, he would have bought one.b. The appellant had told the respondents that the heater would be used in a packing area.c. There were a mixture of heaters on the market including those that contained a thermostat and those that did not.d. Vulcana’s brochure described the heater as having an “overheat switch
fail safe on overheating” and “Full safety protection provided electronically”.e. The heater complied with the British Standard and had been certified by British Gas.f. The instructions for the heater contained a clear warning that it should be left unobstructed. This warning was brought to the attention of the appellant.13. Which of the following was the ratio decidendi of the case? If you think a statement is part of the ratio decidendi explain why. If you think a statement is not part of the ratio decidendi explain why. (10 marks)a. It would be inappropriate for a court to impose, through the medium of tort or of implied contractual terms, any obligation on a seller which involves a higher duty than that which the parties have expressly imposed in their contract, or which the legislature has imposed through section 14.b. The heater was of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which it was supplied.c. Where a commercial buyer has previous experience buying a similar product and is aware of the risks in using that product, then the product is likely to be fit for purpose under section 14.d. If it can be shown that a desirable improvement to the article was common practice, easy and cheap to achieve, and had obvious benefits, then a buyer’s prospect of establishing lack of merchantable quality or of suitability for purpose obviously would be enhanced.e. The fire was caused by a blockage on the front grill of the heater which resulted in the temperature rising to such a level that the containers ignited.14. Mr Matthews owns a shoe shop. The shoe shop has a shop floor and a small, narrow, stock room which contains hundreds of cardboard boxes. The cardboard boxes contain shoes. Mr Matthews wished to purchase a heater for the stock room to use during winter so that his two stock room staff would be kept warm. Mr Matthews asked JTL, a heating company, to visit thestore room and recommend a heater to purchase. The JTL representative recommended their standard heater which did not include a safety guard or thermostat.JTL installed the heater and explained to Mr Matthews that nothing should be placed within a metre radius of the heater. Mr Matthews signed a document confirming that he understood this.A few weeks later, Mr Matthews left an empty cardboard shoe box directly in front of the heater and within an hour the stockroom had caught fire. Mr Matthews is now claiming that the heater was not of merchantable quality and not fit for purpose. He had never purchased a heater before and had trusted JTL. JTL believes that the heater conformed to British Safety Standards and they adequately warned Mr Matthews not to put anything within a metre radius of the heater.Using only the case of Medivance Instruments Ltd v Gaslane Pipework Services Ltd and another, advise JTL on these claims. (15 marks)Part 2 – Statute AnalysisRead the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (“the Act”) and using this statute only answer the following questions.1. What is the short title of the Act? (1 mark)2. What is the long title of the Act? (1 mark)3. On what date did the Act come into force? (1 mark)4. What linguistic presumption would the courts use to determine whether something is included in s.137(5)? Give reasons for your answer. (3 marks)5. How would courts determine what ‘advertisement’ means in s.137(3)? (2 mark)6. Sophie is looking for a job as a teacher. She has recently applied for a teaching position at Hansroad Secondary School. The Head Teacher of this school is a strong believer in supporting a national teaching trade union called ‘Teach Excel Union’. This union helps to compile a short-list for interviews held at the school. The union is aware that Sophie is not a member of any trade union and refuses to offer her an interview for this position. Advise Sophie. (5 marks)7. Marlon is a builder. He attended an interview to become a full-time builder at a construction company called Zeon Limited. In the interview the manager, Henry, asked Marlon whether he was a member of any builders’
trade unions. Marlon replied that he was not a member. Henry told Marlon that he would be offered the job if he did not become a member of a trade union. Marlon felt uncomfortable with this request and explained that he could not guarantee that he would never become a trade union member. Henry refused to offer the job to Marlon. Marlon experienced severe stress and anxiety after this refusal and he was unable to work for one month. Advise Marlon. (10 marks)8. IT World Ltd is an IT retailer that sells computers. Most staff members are members of an IT trade union. IT World Ltd started a redundancy process and proposes to dismiss 150 employees. IT World Ltd started consulting 35 days before it dismissed an employee for redundancy reasons. As part of the consultation, IT World Ltd consulted with senior staff members. One of these senior staff members is a trade union representative. There are five trade union representatives in total at IT World Ltd.IT World Ltd orally told the senior staff members how many people would be made redundant and the reasons for the redundancy. They also asked some other staff members how IT World Ltd could reduce the number of employees to be dismissed. However, when one staff member made a suggestion, IT World Ltd refused to listen. Advise IT World Ltd on their liability under the Act. (15 marks)9. A catering company has suggested that they need to dismiss 25 employees. Under what rule of statutory interpretation would the company be required to start a consultation under s.188(1) and why? (2 marks)10. Marketing Solutions’ accountant, Simon, is a member of an independent trade union which is recognised by Marketing Solutions. Simon has requested time off to represent the union at a trade union conference. Marketing Solutions has told Simon that as it is near the end of the financial year, they need him to work. They have denied Simon’s request to attend the conference. Advise Simon. (10 marks)
QUALITY: 100% ORIGINAL – NO PLAGIARISM.
- **REMEMBER TO PRECISE PAGE NUMBER**
- Hit The Order Button To Order A **Custom Paper**