商务契约关系
businesscontractualrelationships商务契约关系oue3
businesscontractualrelationships商务契约关系oue3DN97 34:Business Contractual RelationshipsCase 1Question 1At the case Tom and Danny has vicarious liability. The vicarious liability is anexample of joint and several liability as the injured party can sue both the employeeand the employer. So in the case Danny has a duty of care with McGregor. Donoghue v Stevenson【1932】Question 2The standard of care should Mrs McGregor have been entitled to expect from Dannyis the standard of care varies according o the particular circumstances. Something likedriving in a icy conditions would require a greater standard of care than in normalweather conditions. Like the case of Nettleshio v Weston(1971), a learner driverowes the same standard of care to the other road users as an experienced driver, asanother road users and pedestrians are entitled to expect a certain standard of care.From this case Danny must pay more attentions on check and repair the break ofMcGregor?s car. As a result of, Danny understand if he cannot ensure there has notany worry with the brakeof McGregor?s car, it may make the accident happen. And itwould be a terrible result. But the end Danny did not spend more time on McGregor?scar, he just worked on it for about 45 minutes. And after that he only tightened somescrews and the problem appeared to have been sorted.That?s all is Danny didn?t reachhis sta ndard of care. Question 3Question 1The liability applies to the keeper of an animal is The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987Act established provisions to clarify the strict liability for injury or damage caused byanimals-that is liability even without deliberate or negligent conduct. Itstates that aperson will be liable for any injury or damage caused by animal if three facts all apply:a)The person was the keeper of the animal at the time;b)The animal belongs to a species known as being likely;( i ) to severely injure or kill people or other animals, or( ii ) to materially damage property; andFrom the case Mark was the keeper of the dog. The dog belongs to a species known asbeing likely to severely injury or kill people or other animals. Because of the Animals(Scotland) Act 1987 Mark has strict liability with this accident.The strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes some persons responsible fordamages their actions, belongings or products, regardless of any “fault” on their part.Question 2The precautions should Mark have taken when going for a walk in the country withTricky are:a) take the dog chain; b) Sets a cap on thedog?s mouth. That may be canhelp Mark and his dog.Question 3No he can?t.Under the Animals (Scotland) Act 1987, the following defences are available to thekeeper of an animal:if the injury or damage was due wholly to the fault of the pursuereg where the pursuer goaded a docile animal which then attacked the pursuer indefence; where the pursuer has voluntarily accepted the risk ie volenti non fit injuria;injury or damage is caused by the mere fact that the animal is present on a road orelsewhere9 e.g. an animal straying onto a road and so causing a traffic accident )In this case, above three points are not satisfied, so Mark cannot defend for herself.Mark will carry out the strict liability.Another case likeBehrens v. Bertram Mills Circus Ltd【1957】The cases is about the plaintiffs, husband and wife, were both midgets and were onexhibition inside a booth in the funfair at Olympia, for which their manager hadobtained a licence from the defendants, when the booth was knocked down byelephants on their way to perform in the circus ring. A small dog, the property of thedaughter of the plaintiffs? manager,which, contrary to re gulations, had been broughtinto the funfair, had run out of the booth, snapping and barking at one of the elephants,which turned and went after the dog; some of the other elephants followed, and patsof the booth fell on the wife who received injuries. Evidence was given that thehusband and wife were exceptionally dependants upon each other. The court hold thecircus should have taken precautions to prevent the elephant from causing harm. Sohe circus should be liable for the injury caused to the plaintiff.Case 3Question 1Five defences available to a defender in a negligence action:a)Statutory justificationA person may have a good defence to an action in delict if he can show that hisacts are covered by statutory authority.b)Self-defenceSelf-defence is valid defence if the defender acted to preserve himself, his familyor his property, so long as the act was reasonable and in keeping with the nature ofthe threat. If a blow is struck in response only to verbal attract, there is no defence.c)CriminalityThe pursuer will be unable to claim damages if he and the defender were involvedin criminal activity.d)IllegalitySimilar to the criminality defense, a person will not be able to maintain a cause ofaction if he has to rely on couduct which is illegal or contrary to the public policy.e)Volenti non fit injuriaQuestion 2For the case …a?, Rab can defend by the defence of criminality. From the statutoryjustification:A person may have a good defence to an action in delict if he can showthat his acts are covered by statutory authority. So Rab can defend because he andJamesie were involved in criminal activity.For example:Ashton v. Turner 1981 RTR 54:The cited isHanlon v. Cuthbertson 1981:A female passenger in a taxi who was injured as a result of an accideng and he taxidriver argued contributory negligence because she was not wearing a seat belt whichotherwise have protected her in the accident. The court hold the pursuer should haveher damages reduced by ten percent as a result of the contributory negligence byherself.Question 3In the case …b? the bus driver can reduce liability by the defence of contributorynegligence. Margaret should have her damages reduced by 40% as a result becausethe action of the bus driver going across under the traffic light change to amber, didn?tbreak the law, but Margaret was not wearing her seat belt had broken the law.In case …c? cannot be successful, because in the sport, the action is normal and legal;actions refer to rule of games. In the case, Knockbuckie?s behavior was not out ofthose actions in the rule, thus he must be make obligation.。
商务契约范本,规范合作关系
商务契约范本，规范合作关系商务契约是商业世界中一种非常重要的法律文件，用于明确商业合作双方的权利义务，并规范双方的合作关系。
通过合理的商务契约，可以为商业合作提供明确的指导，减少合作中的纠纷和风险。
本文将介绍商务契约的概念、作用和必要性，并提供一些常见的商务契约范本，以帮助读者更好地理解和运用商务契约。
什么是商务契约？商务契约是指商业合作双方通过协商达成的一种书面文件，用于明确双方的权利义务、合作条件和交付要求等重要事项。
商务契约可以是双方自行起草的协议，也可以是根据相关法律法规制定的标准合同模板。
无论采用何种形式，商务契约都应当具备明确、具体、可执行的特点，以确保合作的顺利进行。
商务契约的作用和必要性商务契约在商业活动中发挥着至关重要的作用，其主要作用有以下几点：1. 明确双方权利义务商务契约可以明确双方在合作中的权利和义务，防止合作关系中出现理解歧义或利益分歧。
通过明确约定各方的权益，商务契约能够帮助双方更好地理解自己的角色和责任，提高合作的效率和效果。
2. 规范合作流程商务契约不仅明确双方的权利义务，还规范了合作的具体流程和操作步骤。
商务合作通常涉及多个环节和部门，合作方通过制定合作流程，可以确保各个环节衔接顺利，提高合作的透明度和可控性。
3. 规避合作风险商务契约能够帮助合作双方识别和规避潜在的合作风险。
合同中通常包含风险分担、违约责任和争议解决等条款，为双方在合作过程中出现的纠纷提供了明确的解决途径，降低了合作风险并增加了合作的可靠性。
4. 保护商业利益商务契约有助于保护双方的商业利益。
合同中通常包括保密条款、知识产权等重要内容，确保商业机密和知识产权的安全性，防止不当流失和侵权行为，维护双方的合法权益。
5. 便于争议解决商务契约作为法律文件有法律效力，可以作为争议解决的依据。
当合作关系出现矛盾和纠纷时，若有完备的商务契约，就可以依照契约的约定进行协商、调解或诉讼，提高纠纷解决的效率和公正性。
商务契约关系课件 1
林慧娟
20nsumer protection
★Knowledge and/or skills
◆Sale of Goods ◆Unfair Contract ◆Consumer Credit ◆False and misleading Trade Descriptions ◆Product liability
Generic goods: a quantity of a commodity, such as thirty tons of sugar from an unspecified source. ——The contract is not terminated by frustration should the seller’ supply of goods be destroyed.
Section 1 : Sale of Goods
Topic 1: Legislation process
Sale of Goods Act 1893 →
Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended(SOGA1979) → Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994(SSGA1994) → Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002.
Topic 2: Why Legislate for Contracts of "Sale of Goods"?
Purchasers had very little protection as the onus was on them to ensure that the products did not have any problems or defects. (the Roman law maxim of Caveat emptor,or let the buyer beware 罗马法格言：货 物出门概不退还，一经出售概不负责，买者自负； 买者注意，买方小心。)
商务契约关系2.1
Part 1Question 1:What is the difference between a contract of service and a contract for service? Contract of service•An employee-employer contract is a contract of service•is the term used when a person is considered an 'employee' of an organisation •Permanent employees have a contract of service with their employer. By definition, if a worker has a contract of service with an organisation, they are an employeeContract for services• A contractor-client contract is a contract for services•Relates to a person who is self-employed and who provides services to clients.A contract for services is a strictly business to business contract between two firms on a buyer and supplier basis. The client, or agency, is a buyer and the contractor’s limited company or Umbrella Company is the supplier. There is no question of any employment relationshipThe key rights and responsibilities of employee status under a contract of service.The worker is expected to work at a specific place during specific hours on specific days (even flexi-time has core hours). However, contract for service has not fixed time to do work.The worker must present themselves for work and cannot send someone else as a substitute. However, contract for service can taken place with other persons.Employees have statutory rights to holiday pay, sick pay, maternity and paternity rights and redundancy payments. However, contract for service has not holiday pay,sick pay, and so on.Employees have statutory rights regarding how they can be asked to leave their employment. On the contrary, contract for service has not these statutory rights.Employees enjoy a range of additional benefits, which can vary according to the employer, but might include company cars, private health insurance, staff canteens, health clubs and gyms and so on. On the contrary, it is unlucky that contract for service only has fixed wage.Employees are not personally liable for any errors they make when completing work for their employer, nor are they expected to make good in their own time. However, contract for service need to bear all of the responsibility when occur a accident at the work.There are three ways to test a person’s status•The integration test (综合测试）•The economic reality test （经济现实测试）•The control test （控制标准测试）•The totality of the working relationship is looked at in order to determine status so that individual knows whether they are or to what extent they are protected. As contract of services have more rights than contract for service. Cameron is belong to contract for service. Although, he wear suit code，and he also work in the other place at the same time. What’s more, at the busy, he could place to drive by his sister.Question 2:With reference to question 1 above, what kind of contract does Cameron have with tartan plc? Give reasons for your answer.According to Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) reference has a relationship with the case one.The result of the case law is The Minister decided that Mr Latimer was employed under a contract of service.In his judgment, MacKenna J considered what is meant by a contract of service. He said “A contract of service exists if these three conditions are fulfilled.(i)The servant agrees that, in consideration of a wage or other remuneration, he will Provide his own work and skill in the performance of some service for his master. (ii) He agrees, expressly or impliedly, that in the performance of that service he will be subject to the other’s control in a sufficie nt degree to make that other master. (iii) The other provisions of the contract are consistent with its being a contract of service.In my view, Cameron is a contract for service. Owing to he is pertly free to refuse offers of work from the company and there is nothing in his arrangement with Tartan Transport PLC which prevents him from working for any other company. And sometimes make his sister on behalf of to work. Moreover, Cameron rights and interests enjoyed are few。
商务契约关系(Business Contractual Relationships 5.2
5.1.2 专题2 —货物买卖：所有权转移，合同的履行及违反所有权转移(Transfer of Property)在通过关于货物买卖的成文法之前，货物所有权在什么时候转移给买方由苏格兰普通法管辖，其规则为货物所有权在货物交付（delivery）时转移。
然而，成文法SOGA 1979 使苏格兰有了不同于其以前的所有权转移的规则。
该规则来源于英兰格普通法中关于有形动产的法律。
SOGA 1979中规定，货物所有权可以与货物交付分开而独立转移，例如在合同中约定货物所有权转移的时间。
在破产或清算中，当清算人或财产托管人与其他债权人同时对破产财产产生请求权时，上述所有权转移规则会变得尤为重要3。
相应的，如果货物产生灭失，其损失应由货物法律上的“所有者”来承担。
因为除当事人之间另有约定外，货物风险随所有权转移而转移（Risk passes with ownership）。
SOGA 1979第20条规定了两个关于货物风险转移的例外。
首先，当货物的交付由于卖方或买方的过错而被延迟时，货物灭失的风险由造成延迟交付的过错方承担。
其次，货物的买方或卖方在作为货物的管理人或运送人期间，仍对货物负有适当的注意义务（Reasonable Care）。
（在此期间，因作为货物管理人或运送人的一方没有履行其注意义务而致货物灭失的，由该方负担相应责任）。
你可能还能回忆起专题1中的两个概念：现存物（existing goods）和将来物（future goods）。
SOGA 1979还将货物分为特定物（Specific goods）和不特定物（unascertained goods）。
特定物在专3例如：当卖方将货物交付给买方占有但双方约定所有权尚不发生转移，如买方破产，则由买方占有的卖方先前交付的财产不能列入破产财产的范围，而应由卖方直接取回财产。
题1中也描述过其内容。
不特定物(unascertained goods)是指在合同成立时尚未指定并就其达成一致的货物。
推荐-商务契约关系1hnd 精品
Business contractual relationship:Assessment 1:Case one:“A contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”A contract of sale of goods’ therefore covers both a ‘sale’ and an ‘agreement to sell’. Where the seller can transfer the goods immediately, and is willing and able to do so, then there is a ‘sale’. However, where there is some sort of condition that must be fulfilled or some act has to be carried out before the sale can take place, and then there is merely an ‘agreement to sell’.The legal effect of a ‘sale’ is that the purchaser obtains a real right over the goods as property in the goods has passed to the purchaser. However, in an ‘agreement to sell’the purchaser only holds personal right against the seller in respect of the contract.Mary can use SOGA1979 Term to protect herself right and power.Implied Terms of SOGA 1979 include that section12- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of Title, section13-Sale by Description, section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’, and section15- Sale by Sample.Section 12 -- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of TitleAt the first, the seller must have ‘title’ to the goods; the right to sell the goods. The seller must either own the goods or should have the appropriate authority from the owner to sell the goods.No third party should have any claim on the goods which would prevent the buyer from obtaining a good title and quite possession of the goods. If there is any charge or encumbrance over the goods by the third party, then all known charges or encumbrance would required to be disclosed prior to the sale.Section13-Sale by DescriptionOn the other hand, this section implies the term that the goods are to ply with their description. It is clear that if the buyer dose not sees the goods prior to purchase and buy s those relying on a description, then this section would apply.However, SOGA 1979 also makes clears that a sale by description can also apply to goods exposed for sale and selected by the customer.Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’,Satisfactory QualityIn English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensure that goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required –the caveat emptor rule.In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith.Section 14 only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business so it only covers the situation where the seller is in business. It does not cover private sales although the status of the buyer is irrelevant. Section 14 applies to business buyers as well as to private buyers.The quality of goods includes their state and conditions and this would therefore means that if goods are advertised as in a sale , or seconds etc, this could have some effect on quality to be expected. There are factors that are listed in section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases :( 1)Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kinds in question are monly supplied(2)Appearance and finish (3)Freedom form minor defect (4) Safety (5) Durability.Reasonable Fitness for PurposeUnder section 14 of SOGA 1979, there is an implied term that the goods are reasonable fit for the purpose, whether or not that is purpose for which such goods are monly supplied.In the case, Mary’s tumble dryer has quality problems and line installation defects caused by fire. This does not conform to the provisions of product safety. Because this product’ defects cause serious consequences. Of course, the hairdryer to use only two months on the problems that the hairdryer is not durability. Hence，Mary could use Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’ because that Mary’s situation conforms to the content that the law stipulate.Section15- Sale by SampleIn this section there are two implied terms:That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality: and that the goods will be free from any defect, marking them unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.Case two:Charlie can't use the SOGA1979 bill rights, because Charlie did not directly buy tumble dryer.Charlie can use the Law of Delict to protect his own power，the Law of Delict, like the law of contract , is a part of the law of obligations. A delict has been defined as: “a civil wrong mitted by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liab ility to make reparation for any consequential loss or injury may arise”General principles of Delictual liabilityAs noted above there must be three elements present:A loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation.Caused by a legal wrong (wrong conduct)Caused by culpa(fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.Charlie lung inhalation of smoke to his shock in this belongs to the serious loss. According to the case, Charlie is not negligence resulting in the fire is mainly because short circuit caused the fire.Charlie can also use the Consumer Protection Act 1987to protect his rights and interests.It contains importance extension of the privity of contract rights for consumers if goods are unsafe, so that rights also exist directly against producers and those who hold themselves out as producers.The consumer protection act 1987 deal with three main aspects of consumer protection: product liability, customer safety and misleading pricing.Product liabilityPart one of the customer protection act 1987 transport the product liability directive into the UK law.part 1 of the establishes is a principle of strict liability relating to defective products which cause damages to other property and injure to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contract with the product.Strict liability means that the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The product liability section made producers liable for any damage done by defective products. The Act goes even further in ensuring that customers are protected from damage or injure caused by faulty goods.In the case, Charlie’s safety and healthy was threaten by the gas that he absorb in the fire. This event happened due to product defect. Therefore, this event belongs to the product liability act.Consumer safetyPart 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.It deal with consumer safety and allows the government to regulate the design, ponents and construction of goods which could, if defective cause injury. Charlie also fits the bill because it is due to product defects cause harm. what’s more, the tumble dryer damage his health in this event and there is a bad effect on his life. Therefore, this event is suiting to Part 2 of Consumer Protection Act 1987provides the safety provisions.Misleading pricingPart 3 of the Act makes it illegal to mislead consumes about the price of any good, service or facility. The provisions of this part are quite prehensive and cover such services as banking, gas and electricity supplies, telephone service, parking acmodation and all goodsCase 3:The boss’s word is not obe yed no clause exempting.The first does not conform to the provisions; this statement is not a fair statement. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 ——regulates contracts by restricting the operation and legality of some contract terms. One of its most important functions is limiting the applicability of disclaimers of liability.Section17 UCTA1977covers attempts to exclude contractual liability in consumer and standard form contract.If a document is singed at the time of making the contract, its contents bee terms of that contract, regardless of whether they have been read or understood.If separate written terms are presented at the time a contract is made, for example by handing over ticket, those terms only bee part of the contract if it can be said that the recipient had reasonable notice of them. However an exemption clause is only incorporated into the contract if notice is given before or at the time of contracting.Case 4：Debtor –creditor –supplier agreement. Where the creditor is also the supplier of the goods. In these agreement where goods or services cost more than$100or less than $30000 the debtor can hold the creditor jointly and severally liable with supplier when he claims misrepresentation or breach of contract against the supplier –known as ‘ connected leader liability’.Examples where there would be a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement include purchases of goods from retailers where there is a pre-existing financing arrangement; hire-purchase arrangements where the finance is provided by a finance pany; and credit card transactions.Under section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable in respect of any breach of contract. The consumer would therefore choose to claim against either the creditor or the supplier.The creditor and supplier may be the same person, and has links to a creditor or vendor who will provide loans to the vendor's customers, this is a very mon type of agreement generally suppliers belong to the intermediary in the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement, however section75 of the Act allows debit charges lenders and suppliers, If a breach of contract, plus 85 pages under section 75 Credit belongs to consumer creditor with supplier belongs to the same party this clause can Act 1974 Dave supplier creditor claims.。
商务契约关系
Outcome 1From the case we know that Michael pushed an all weather jacket. Unlucky, there have something wrong with this jacket. After wearing for only one day the zip had broken and water had penetrated and he had felt cold. This jacket is the unqualified products and not sold by manufacturer’s description. The sale of goods Act 1979is the main piece of legislation helping consumer to seek protection when their purchases go wrong. Michael could protect himself rights through the sale of goods Act1979.The Sale of Goods Act 1979 protects the right of consumer. However, the act has been being modified and influenced by the followed legislation. Most notably of the subsequent legislation are the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulation 2002. In the section 2 of SOGA1979, contract sale is “a contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in good s to the buyer for a money consideration called a price.Michael needs to look at section 2 of SOGA 1979 and keep receipt or invoice of this jacket. The receipt or invoice show when Michael pay the jacket and get the jacket. This is sale not barter. Barter is use an item to replace another item, there is no money paid. It also can be the basis for Michael to protect his rights. In law, sale is a party obtains the ownership of goods then sold to another party. A contract can be in writing, be made orally, or party in writing and partly or orally.The section 12 of SOGA said that the seller must be the owner of the goods. If the seller does not have right of the goods and sells those goods, then the buyer would not gain a good title of goods. And if the third party has the ownership of the goods the buyer can not get the rights of the goods. The obligations from the section 12 can’t respected or astricted by the agreement under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended. Based on the decision from the case of Niblett Ltd v Confectioners Materials Co (1921) and McDonald v Provan (1960) consumers are successful to claim the seller breach the section 12 of SOGA.According to the section 13 of SOGA 1979 the seller to sell goods at the same time they must to fulfill their obligations. The seller to sell goods must fit himself description. It was held in the case of Roberts & Co &Yule (1896) and Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) the sellers breach the section 13 of SOGA as the good not sold by description. The section 14 (2A) of SOGA rules that the seller sell good s must be fit for its purpose and have satisfactory quality. And the section 14 (2B) rules the goods must be appearance and finished, safety and durability. If not, you as the supplier are obliged to sort out the problem. In the case, the jacket is unqualified goods and not fits seller’s description. Michael can sue the seller.If the buyer have some special requirement about the goods they should tell the seller before buy the good. As mentioned above there is strict liability under section 14. Sothe buyer is unnecessary to prove the damage is caused by the seller.The claimant is entitled to have a legal action to against the defendant for the defendant goods (jacket) in terms of the sale of good Act 1979. So the seller could have s legal action to against Michael of his not clearly requirement. If buyer has some special requirement they should tell the supplier clearly before the section will apply.In this case Michael buys an unqualified jacket and the seller sold not by his description. Michael could claim the seller for breach section 13 and 14 of SOGA. In the case of Roberts & Co &Yule (1896) and Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) the sellers breach the section 13 of SOGA as the good not sold by description. Michael could sue the seller to protect himself rights.Outcome2In this case Michael bought an expensive garden maintenance set included mower and the trimmer. He paid by credit from the credit company which normally provided finance for the shop’s customers. Few days later the mower and the trimmer break down and the shop is closing down.Michael could protect his rights through The Consumer Credit Act 1974. He needs to know something about the CCA1974. The CCA1974 rules that the company provide credit must have license. Company could apply for the; license in the OFT and hand in the apply table to the Director General. Applications for license are made to the Director General and have five years validity. If company provide credit without license is a criminal offence and will be result in imprisonment.The CCA 1974 gives consumer the right to settle a fixed sum credit agreement. If consumer needs to pay much money they should notices to the lender and paying the outstanding sum in full. In section 8 of the CCA 1974 a consumer credit agreement is defined as the creditor supplies the debtor with credit not exceeding￡25,000. a consumer hire agreement is defined in section 15 of the CCA1974 as an agreement made by owner of goods hire goods to other person and lasting for more than three months can’t require the hirer paid exceeding￡25,000. In this case is relate to consumer credit agreement not consumer hire agreement.Running account credit is said that the bank give debtors credit demand on up to an agreed credit limit. The credit include bank overdraft and some shop credit accounts. Fixed sum credit is said that the debtor can receives credit in a single sum or in instalments.The section 60 of CCA provides some rules for have a document. And it also was under the Consumer Credit Regulation 1983. The Consumer Credit Regulation 1983rules something seriously about the document. The document must contain the name and address of the parties and amount of the total charge for credit. There also should have amount and timing of each payment and the total amount payable. There need to provide details of any security to be provided by the debtor and details of any charges payable by the debtor if on default. In the first page must declare which type of agreement in this document. Last, the document must be signed and copies kept both debtor and creditor. Michael could provide the document to the judge.Under section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally in fraud or breach of contract. Sometimes creditor is also the supplier of goods. If the supplier disappeared the consumer could claim the creditor to protect their rights. In this case the shop is closing down when the mower and trimmer break down. So Michael could sue the credit company which normally provided finance for the shop’s consumers.In this case Michael bought a expensive maintenance set included the mower and the trimmer. He paid by the credit due to the expensive. Few days later the mower and the trimmer break down and the shop is closing down. According to the credit company normally provided finance for the shop’s consumers Michael could claim the credit company to compensation his loss.Outcome3In this case, Michael buys the same set from another then he notices that the specification is different from the one displayed as a demonstrator. The electrical items were not as large and the hand held tools were fiberglass rather than the stainless steel.The Trade Description Act 1968 plays an important role in protecting consumer of goods and services through the criminal law. Michael could protect his rights through the TDA 1968. In section 2 of the TDA 1968 a trade description id defined as indirect or direct describe of goods.The fitness for purposes, strength and performance must include in the description. The description should have the date or place of manufacture, production and processing or reconditioning of the goods. The description need to introduce the quantity, size of the goods and the composition of the goods. In the description should have any other physical characteristics of the goods and other history of the including ownership or use. Another important point is to list any testing by any person and the results of such testing and any approval by any person or conformity with a type of approval.False description means misleading to a material degree. Relate to the case, Michael see the set displayed as demonstrator and buy it. Because of the displayed goods is a false description make Michael believe goods material. Michael could sue the seller false description. Based on the case of Wings v Ellis (1985) and the case of British Airways Board v Taylor (1985) consumers claim the seller for false description and breach of the section 14.In the section 14 of the TDA 1968 a false description is criminal offence for any person in a trade or a business. It included some situations. If someone make any statement which he knows to be false or reckless. The false description may be included the location, person by whom provided and amenities. The provision, nature and the time sometimes may be false. The false description also included manner in which and the approval, examination or evaluation of any person. In this case, supplier breach of section 14 due the false description. It will be a criminal offence.However the defendant is entitled to have a legal action to against the claimant, in section 24 of TDA 1968 called defence. The supplier may said that consumer give mistake or reliance information to him result in the defective goods. And that he has does his best to avoid take place this false description, due to consumer doesn’t tell him the details about clearly. Such as the requirement of size and material. Consumer should check up goods before out of the shop.In this case Michael purchased the garden good is not satisfied because it is different from the displayed one. Michael could sue the retailer for breach of section 14 of the TDA 1968, he should receive compensation. But the seller could defence because of consumer’s unclearly requirement lead to this mistake and he does his best to avoid this mistake. If retailer could provide strong evidence the defence may be successful. If not, the retailer must compensate the loss of Michael or give Michael the right size and composition goods.。
商务契约关系outcome2
商务契约关系outcome2
第一章契约的定义与种类
契约是指双方当事人就某种事项达成的一致意见，经过法律程序的认可后具有法律效力的协议。
契约种类包括口头契约、书面契约、法定契约和约定行为契约。
第二章商务契约的要素
商务契约包括因合同产生的交易，因此其要素较为复杂包括契约对象、契约条款、契约标的、契约期限、契约价款等。
第三章商务契约的履行和解除
商务契约是双方当事人通过协商达成的合同，需要履行合同的内容。
如果在履行过程中出现问题，双方可通过合同中的解除条款来解除合同。
同时，被迫终止合同所导致的损失需由违约方承担。
第四章商务契约的争议解决方式
商务契约争议的解决方式包括调解、仲裁和诉讼。
其中，调解是一种比较流行的解决方式，但需要双方当事人达成一致；仲裁是一种公正、快捷的解决方式，但需要确定仲裁人；诉讼是一种最后的解决方式，但程序较为繁琐且费用高。
第五章商务契约管理和风险控制
商务契约管理和风险控制是商务交易中不可忽视的一环。
在契约签订之前，需要对双方当事人进行风险评估和背景调查；在契约执行过程中，需要进行风险监控和风险防范，确保契约条款的履行。
结论
商务契约关系在商业交易中具有重要的地位，要素、履行、争议解决、管理和风险控制是其中必不可少的环节，需要双方当事人充分了解并遵守相关规定，确保商务契约秩序的稳定与发展。
推荐-商务契约关系1hnd精品
推荐-商务契约关系1hnd精品Business contractual relationship:Assessment 1:Case one:“A contract in which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.”A contract of sale of goods’ therefore covers both a ‘sale’ and an ‘agreement to sell’. Where the seller can transfer the goods immediately, and is willing and able to do so, then there is a ‘sale’. However, where there i s some sort of condition that must be fulfilled or some act has to be carried out before the sale can take place, and then there is merely an ‘agreement to sell’.The legal effect of a ‘sale’ is that the purchaser obtains a real right over the goods as property in the goods has passed to the purchaser. However, in an ‘agreement to sell’the purchaser only holds personal right against the seller in respect of the contract.Mary can use SOGA1979 Term to protect herself right and power.Implied Terms of SOGA 1979 include that section12- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of Title, section13-Sale by Description, section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’, and section15- Sale by Sample.Section 12 -- SOGA 1979- Implied Terms of TitleAt the firs t, the seller must have ‘title’ to the goods; the right to sell the goods. The seller must either own the goods or should have the appropriate authority from the owner to sell the goods.No third party should have any claim on the goods which would prevent the buyer from obtaining a good title and quite possession of the goods. If there is any charge or encumbrance over the goods by the third party, then all known charges or encumbrance would required to be disclosed prior to the sale.Section13-Sale by DescriptionOn the other hand, this section implies the term that the goods are to ply with their description. It is clear that if the buyer dose not sees the goods prior to purchase and buy s those relying on a description, then this section would apply.However, SOGA 1979 also makes clears that a sale by description can also apply to goods exposed for sale and selected by the customer.Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’,Satisfactory QualityIn English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensure that goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required –the caveat emptor rule.In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith.Section 14 only applies where goods are sold in the course of a business so it only covers the situation where the seller is in business. It does not cover private sales although the status of the buyer is irrelevant. Section 14 applies to business buyers as well as to private buyers.The quality of goods includes their state and conditions and this would therefore means that if goods are advertised as in a sale , or seconds etc, this could have some effect on quality to be expected. There are factors that are listed in section 14 of SOGA1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases :( 1)Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kinds in question are monly supplied(2)Appearance and finish (3)Freedom form minor defect (4) Safety (5) Durability.Reasonable Fitness for PurposeUnder section 14 of SOGA 1979, there is an implied term that the goods are reasonable fit for the purpose, whether or not that is purpose for which such goods are monly supplied.In the case, Mary’s tumble dryer has quality problems and line installation defects caused by fire. This does not conform to the provisions of product safety. Because this product’ defects cause serious consequences. Of course, the hairdryer to use only two months on the problems that the hairdryer is not durability. Hence，Mary could use Section 14 -‘Satisfactory Quality’ and ‘Reasonable Fitness for Purpose’ because that Mary’s situation conforms to the content that the law stipulate.Section15- Sale by SampleIn this section there are two implied terms:That the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality: and that the goods will be free from any defect, marking them unsatisfactory, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.Case two:Charlie can't use the SOGA1979 bill rights, because Charlie did not directly buy tumble dryer.Charlie can use the Law of Delict to protect his own power，the Law of Delict, like the law of contract , is a part of the law of obligations. A delict has been defined as: “a civil wrong mitted by a person in deliberate or negligent breach of a legal duty, from which liab ility to make reparation for any consequential loss orinjury may arise”General principles of Delictual liabilityAs noted above there must be three elements present:A loss or injury, such as physical or personal injury, the loss of earnings, nervous shock, distress, damage to a reputation.Caused by a legal wrong (wrong conduct)Caused by culpa(fault, intentionally or negligently done) on the part of the wrongdoer.Charlie lung inhalation of smoke to his shock in this belongs to the serious loss. According to the case, Charlie is not negligence resulting in the fire is mainly because short circuit caused the fire.Charlie can also use the Consumer Protection Act 1987to protect his rights and interests.It contains importance extension of the privity of contract rights for consumers if goods are unsafe, so that rights also exist directly against producers and those who hold themselves out as producers.The consumer protection act 1987 deal with three main aspects of consumer protection: product liability, customer safety and misleading pricing.Product liabilityPart one of the customer protection act 1987 transport the product liability directive into the UK law.part 1 of the establishes is a principle of strict liability relating to defective products which cause damages to other property and injure to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into close contract with the product.Strict liability means that the plaintiff does not have to prove fault on the part of the defendant. The product liability sectionmade producers liable for any damage done by defective products. The Act goes even further in ensuring that customers are protected from damage or injure caused by faulty goods.。
商业伙伴关系契约
商业伙伴关系契约本商业伙伴关系契约（下文简称“契约”），于_____年____月____日签署，由以下签约方（以下简称“各方”）共同约定以下条款，以确保双方在商业合作过程中的权益和责任。
第一条目的和范围1.1 本契约的目的在于明确各方商业合作的基本原则和规范，并为双方的权益提供保障。
1.2 本契约适用于各方在商业活动中的所有合作项目，涵盖但不限于产品销售、资源共享、市场推广等方面。
第二条合作内容2.1 合作项目的具体内容由各方另行协商确定，并以书面形式确认或通过电子邮件确认为有效。
2.2 合作期限为双方共同确认的起始日期至合同解除或履行完毕之日。
2.3 合作期间，各方应根据业务需要和合作协议的规定，保持相互沟通和协调，及时解决合作过程中出现的问题，以确保项目的顺利进行。
第三条责任和义务3.1 各方应本着互利共赢的原则，诚实守信地执行契约要求，不得有任何违反法律法规或商业道德的行为。
3.2 合作期间，各方应积极履行自身职责，保证合作活动的正常进行。
同时，各方应保护和维护他方的商业利益和商业机密，不得向任何第三方泄露有关商业合作的敏感信息。
3.3 如发生不可抗力事件，包括但不限于自然灾害、战争、政府管制等不可预见的事件，导致无法履行本合同的，各方应及时通知他方，并在合理的时间内协商解决办法。
在此期间，各方暂时免除因不可抗力事件而产生的责任。
第四条保密条款4.1 各方应对双方在商业合作过程中所了解到的商业机密严格保密，不得向任何第三方透露或泄露，除非获得对方书面授权。
4.2 商业机密包括但不限于商业计划、技术信息、客户信息、财务数据等，无论是口头或书面形式，都应受到严格的保护。
4.3 在合同解除或终止后，各方应归还对方提供的商业机密资料，并删除存储在电子设备上的相关信息。
第五条违约和解决纠纷5.1 若各方中的任何一方违反了本契约的约定，应承担相应的违约责任，并赔偿因此给对方造成的损失。
5.2 对于因合作活动产生的争议或纠纷，各方应尽力通过友好协商和合作解决。
商务契约关系 Outcome 1
Outcome 1 Case 11.Satisfactory Quality: In English law, there was previously an onus on the purchaser to ensurethat goods were of a reasonable quality and suitable for any specific purpose required the caveat emptor rule. In Scottish law, there was a principle that a sale of goods was a contract of good faith bona fide and the seller was bound to sell goods which were worthy of the price.There are factors that are listed in section 14(2b) of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases, Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied: Appearance and finish; Freedom from minor defects; Safety and;Durability; Thomson v J Sears& CO (1926)2.No, this contract between maggie and seller.The seller has to return both the purchase price and compensate for any damage which the defective goods may have caused.，The provisions of SOGA 1979 only apply to the buyer, not to any other party, for example a person who received the goods as a gift, has no claim against the seller under the Act.3.Section 20 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 states that any attempt to exclude orrestrict the seller’s liability for breach of Section 12 is void.The contract it must be “incorporated”or form part of the contract .consumer contracts for the supply of goods and services are covered by act, as well as contracts of employment and apprenticeship. beach of any duty to take reasonable care exercise reasonable skill arising from the express implied terms of a contract. Any attempt to exclude liability for death or personal injury arising from breach of any of the above duties is void,4. Section 16 UCTA 1977 covers attempts to exclude or restrict liability in relation to breach of duty in contracts or non-contractual notices. Breach of duty broadly covers the following.Any attempt exclude liability for other loss or damage arising from breach of any of the above duties is allowed only to the extent that it is ‘fair and reasonable’Unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999.the regulations apply more widely than UCTA 1977 and can apply to the following situations: terms regarding termination of the contract and adequate notice; terms regarding delivery dates; terms allowing the supplier to increase charges without negotiation.Section 20 UCTA 1977, as seen in topic 1, covers attempts to exclude or restrict liability in relation to implied terms in SOGA 1979. As previously discussed any such clauses are void in a consumer contract.5. Rejection of the goods and Damages. Where the seller is in breach of any terms in a contract, the buyer shall be entitled to claim damages, and if the breach is material to treat the contract as repudiated and reject the goods.By section 15b (2) SOGA 1979 where the contract is a consumer contract, a breach of the terms implied terms’ covered in Topic 1 will be regarded as a material breach. This will allow the consumer to reject the goods and claim damages. Additional Rights of Buyers in Consumer Contracts. It has part 5a to SOGA1979 making provision for additional remedies for buyers in consumer contracts where the goods for not conform to the contract at the time of delivery.The remedies available under section 48 SOGA 1979 are:Repairing or replacement of goods; Reduction in price; Rescission of the contract.Case 21. Consumer Credit& The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974)The CCA 1974 controls ‘ regulated agreements’ which are defined in Section 189 of the ACT as a consumer credit agreement ,or consumer hire agreement, other than an exempt agreement. A consumer credit agreement is the creditor supplies the debtor with credit not exceeding 25,000. This 25,000 limit only applies to amount of credit advanced.2. There are two main categories of credit transaction or regulated agreement. Debtor-creditor- supplier’s agreement. Under Section 75 of the CCA 1974 both the creditor and the supplier are jointly and severally liable in respect of any breach of contract against the supplier known as ‘connected lender liability’. The consumer would therefore choose to claim against either the creditor or the supplier.3. Protected Goods under a Hire Purchase or a Conditional Sale Agreement. In a hire –purchase or conditional sale agreement, ownership of the goods remains with the creditor until the debtor makes the last payment. Under common law provisions creditors could repossess the goods where the debtor is in default of obligations. Ownership of goods does not pass until the last payment has been made. A credit sale agreement is one where the purchase price is payable in five of more installments. But it is not a conditional sale agreement. Ownership of the goods would pass immediately to the buyer.4. Right to cancel the agreement. The debtor has the right to cancel within the ‘cooling off” period: there has been an oral selling of the agreement to the debtor; and the agreement has been signed by the debtor off trade premises. Cancellation of a regulated agreement also cancels a linked transaction, for example, where there is debtor-creditor-supplier agreement.5. The CCA 1974 introduced a licensing system to over all actives relating to credit. Applications for licences are made to the Director General and currently last for five years. It is a criminal offence to provide credit without a licence. Under Section 21 and 147 of the CCA 1974, licences are required for consumer credit, consumer hire and ‘ancillary credit businesses’Case 3 1. The topic deals with the statutory provisions to protect consumers provided for in The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (TDA 1968).The TDA 1968 has a role in protecting consumers of goods and services through the criminal law. The local trading standards department are given various powers to carry out their duties under the Act and may make test purchases, enter premises at all reasonable hours, if they have reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed, require production of books and documents and seize goods, enter premises after obtaining a Warrant from a Sheriff of Justice of the Peace. Strict liability applies to these offences, meaning that a person acting in his course of a trade or business can commit an offence without intending to do so.2. Defenses available for a section 1 or section 14 offence. Onus is on the accused to establish the defense known as due diligence. The accused must establish two things under section 24;(1)that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake or reliance on information suppliedto him/her, or the act of someone else, or an accident or some other cause beyond his /her control; And(2)that he/she took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid thecommission of such an offence by himself/herself or any person under his/her control.If the accused is attempting to prove that he/she relied on the actions of someone else, or information supplied by someone else then he/she must give written notice to the prosecution identifying the other person at least seven days before the date of the hearing.Ford v Guild (1990).。
商务契约关系
1.0IntroductionJane black is a buyer for a high street fashion shop and she has the right for employers to purchase all styles of fashion ladies.Now Jane Black has some trouble , Because Jane Black and men`s clothing suppliers signed a contract , Jane Black that these clothes relatively inexpensive and great looking , but employers will certainly be very happy . However , employers are not uniform Jane Black`s point of view , an employer that Jane Black breach of contract , the employer refused to Jane Black of the contract . So Jane Black feel very distressed . He gave us advice .The purpose of this report is to introduce the law of agency , agency law analysis , and analysis of the case , explain how to form an agency relationship . In these processes , make recommendations for Jane Black .2.0The types of agent and principalAgent may refer to one who acts for , or in the place of , anther , by authority from him ; One entrusted with the business of another .As discussed by economists as the principal –agent problem ,agent means anyone supposed to act in the interests of the principal , especially insofar as the actions of the agent cannot be completely monitored by the principal . In this sense agent includes such diverse and common roles as auto mechanic , adoctor ,a lawyer , an investment advisor , any fiduciary , a contractor , any employee( from the point of view of the employer ) , and a political representative in a democracy .Agents ate divided into general and special and special proxy agent .Agents are divided into general and special proxy agent . Agent can be designated range of general agents , general agents the right to be larger , becausethe general agent in the exercise of power .In this way , We can use to analyze the definition and classification of the things Jane Black . Jane Black and employers to sign a contract is clearly dominant .Jane Black while employer have the right to buy for , but Jane Black is to follow the employer is request and to execute this contract rights . Jane Black , and another person does not mean that the contract is signed and Jane Black of the employer is contract . We have to analyze Jane Black has failed to fulfill the employer is contract , she is not within the scope of the contract at the employer is own right .3.0The type of agentFirst , the sub-agency relationship is clearly very important . Distinguish between the agent , we will understand more clearly the case .Agency relationship can be divided into the following ways:Express authority maybe oral authority or authority in writing . If an agent exceeds this express authority then the principal will not be bound by the agent`s actions.In this case , Jane Black and employers is a clear relationship .Implied authority is authority to do all that is necessary (or ordinarily incidental ) to the agent`s express authority and it is presumed that the principal consents to this . For example , general agent has implied authority to do what someone of his profession , or trade , would ordinarily do .For example ,eville v C & A Modes Ltd (1945) a shop manager was held to be an agent, but , In this case , Jane Black is directly responsible for the purchase of all female fashion .So in the case of this form does not exist .Agency of necessity arises when a person ( A) is faced with an emergency inwhich the property of another person ( B ) is in imminent jeopardy and it becomes necessary , in order to preserve the property for A to act for and on behalf of B. Agency of necessity arises only when it is practically impossible for the agent to communicate with the principal before the agent acts on behalf of the principl . ( This would be difficult to establish with today`s advanced communication systems and is the reason why agency of necessity does not often arise .)Authority to act in case of emergencies cannot usually prevail over express in structions to the contrary given by the principal .For example Fernie v Robertson (1871)，an ages necessary in the circumstances it appears the relationship . In the event of death or insanity appears , or some kind of emergency situation . In the case , Jane Black must show evidence , and third-party contract in time . She is not any accident , or have any special circumstances . Clearly , in this case which does not exist . Fernie V Robertson (1871), an agency of necessity arose when a senile perse`s estate was liable for house repair bills contracted on her behalf as the senile woman was too ill to issue instructions .4.0 AuthorityAn agent who acts within the scope of authority conferred by his or her principal binds the principal in the obligations he or she creates against third parties . There are essentially three kinds of authority recognized in the law : actual authority (ehether express or implied ) , apparent authority , and ratified authority .Actual authority can be of two kinds . Either the principal may have expressly conferred authority on the agent , or authority may be implied .Authority arises by consensual agreement , and whether it exists is a question of fact > An agent ,as a general rule , is only entitled to indemnity from the principal if he or she acted within the scope of her actual authority, and may be in breach of contract , and liable to a third party for breach of the implied warranty of authority . I tort , a claimant may not recover from the principal unless the agent is acting within the scope of employment .Express actual authority means an agent has been expressly told he or she may act on behalf of a principal . For example, Ireland V Livingstone (1872).Implied actual authority , also called “ usual authority” ,is authority an agent has by virtue of being reasonably necessary to carry out his express authority . As such , it can be inferred by virtue of a position held by an agent . For example , partners have authority to bind the other partners in the firm , their liability being joint and several , and in a corporation , all executives and senior employees with decision – maiking authority by virtue of their position have authority to bind the corporation . For example, Hely-Hutchinson V Brayhead Ltd (1968)>About lLord Suirdale (Richard Michae)John Hely-Hutchinson) sued Brayhead Ltd for losses incurred after a failed takeover deal .From the above two examples , we can conclude that the employer gave Jane Black power , Jane Black power is to buy women`s fashion , men`s fashion she did not get the employer is consent or acquiescence . But there is no surface of the authority . In this case , Jane Black is no need for institutions , so this situation does not exist.5.0 Duties of an agentAn agent owes the principal a number of duties . These include :1 A duty to undertake the task or tasks specified by the terms of the agency ( that is , the agent must not do things that he has not been authorized by the principal to do ).2. A duty to discharge his duties with care and due diligence . 3 . A duty to avoid conflict of interest between the interests of the principal and his own ( that is , the agent cannot engage in conduct where stands to gain a benefit for himself to the detriment of the principal).An agent must not accept any new obligations that are inconsistent with the duties owed to the principal . An agent can represent the interests of more than on principal , conflicting or potentially conflicting , only after full disclosure and consent of the principal .An agent also must not engage in self-dealing , or otherwise unduly enrich himself from the agency . An agent must not usurp an opportunity from the principal by taking it for himself or passing it on to a third party .In return , the principal must make a full disclosure of all information relevant to the transact that the agent is authorized to negotiate and pay the agent either a prearranged commission , or a reasonable fee established after the fact .In the caseof Bertram Armstrong v Godfrey (1830), an agent failed to sell shares at a certain price and waited to get a better price . The market crashed and he was held liable to the principal the loss incurred .In this case , Jane Black is the right to buy women fashion , but she signed with a third party party contract to buymen`s fashion , she did not comply with the requirements of employers .In the case of Luxmore – May V Messenger May Bostock (1990) , an auctioneer severely undervalued a masterpiece and was held liable for the difference between the valuation and the true value .Jane Black in this event which plays an important role , she is personally handle this matter , the one thing she has this responsibility . Jane Black breached his employer`s request , she and the employer`s written clearly on the requirements of the contract to buy women . So , Jane Black must say so , this thing inside yourself , and no third party interest , but his mind is good . Jane Black want their employers to earn money . But the law of the contract , the employer happy . Jane Black must be the truth .6.0 ConclusionThis report is mainly used to analyze the events of the law of agency . Which includes Jane Black`s legal status , duties , powers , and employer relations .These are analyzed and later , Jane Black will understand how to do it . This report contains almost all of the agency law of the content that is not only helpful for Jane Black ,are useful ofr most people .7.0 Reference.hk (26.12.2011)/wiki/Agent_(law)(26.12.2011)/terms/a/agency-by-necessity.asp#axzz1gz1mR9t2(26.12.2011)/definition/express-authority.html (26.12.2011) /definition/general-agent.html (26.12.2011) eville v C & A Modes Ltd (1945)Fernie v Robertson (1871)Ireland V Livingstone (1872).Hely-Hutchinson V Brayhead Ltd (1968)Bertram Armstrong v Godfrey (1830)Luxmore – May V Messenger May Bostock (1990)Great Northern Railway v Swaffield (1874)。
商务契约关系 outcome2
Outcome 2Case31Employers have the right to write a written statement to the employees. The written statement is not a contract. The written statement include your name, employee name, data of your stat working, wages, detail working and leave and so on. If the employers change the statement, they must give notice within one month.2 Sharon has the right to charge the company. Because the company isn’t have enough training experience. Sam has an obligation to create a safe working environment. Shredders a re dangerous goods. Consumer protection act 1987, employer’s liability(defective equipement) act 1969. 3. The company can stop David close to his customers. Because it is a illegal behavior and break the law. Customers belong to the company, not belong to David. Sale by ERA 1996, He must compensate the company's losses.4. the employer’s duty :1)To pay wages2)To provide work3)To indemnity his employees4)To treat employees with trust and respectthe employee’s duty1)To provide personal service2)To provide loyal service3)The employee must not make secret profits.4)Acts with honesty and integrityCase41 sex, age marriage, belief, race●Jimmy suffers the age discrimination. Although age discrimination is becameillegal. Unless there is a council according to age discrimination to protect staff equality of opportunity.●Alison’s employer refuse or negligence for her work environment to create areasonable adjustment. So Alison suffers the Disability discrimination●Owing to Carmen pregnant so that the council refused to give her work. Carmenhas suffered the sex discrimination●Because of Bob’s complexion, he loses his job. Bob suffer discrimination bycolor.：Jimmy-age discriminationAlison-Disability Discrimination Act 1995Carmen-Sex Discrimination Act 1975Bob-Race Relations Act 1976。
outcome2商务契约关系
outcome2 商务契约关系case1 1If you are an employee, i.e. you sign a contract of Service; theoretically, you havehigher position than those who sign contract for services, which are independent contractors.This is a hugely important distinction in UK employment law.C of S : employee-employer relationship. If a worker has a C of Swith an organization, they are an employee. Employees must present themselves for work and cannot send someone else as a substitute. They also have statutory rights to holiday pay, sick pay and so on. They are not liable for any errors they make when completing work for their employer.C FOR S; contractor-client relationship. The employer is generallynot liable for the vicarious acts of independent contractors.Contractors have a contractor for service with their client or agency. Contractor is required to abide by any health and safety agreements when working on the client;s site. 2…Cameron under the contract for service, because Cameron work for customer, give customer service , he is not an employer because he has not had the benefit of regular working patterns . 3…In term of state legal implication, the company needn’t reasonablefor Cameron, Because Cameron and the company are contract for service, there is no employment relationship. also Cameron is a independent contractor。
HND商务契约关系复习
Key Point
Section 48(3)A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 now states 将有 一个强力的推定去对抗卖家,如果瑕疵在交给买家6个月内生成, 卖家家可能被认为没有达到令人满意的质量. 然而, 卖家可以因买 家的篡改或滥用而使其无效 ♦ Jackson v Rotax Motor and Cycle Co [1910] ♦ Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] ♦ Mash and Murrell v Joseph I Emmanuel [1961], [1962] ♦ Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965] ♦ BS Brown & Son Ltd v Craiks Ltd [1970] ♦ Millars of Falkirk v Turpie [1976]
Someone has a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement with bank. Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements where the creditor and supplier 可能是同一人或是供应商has links to a creditor who will 提供借贷给 供应商的客户. 这是一种很普遍的协议. 一般说来, 供应商 在debtorcreditor-supplier agreement 中属于中介. 然而, Section 75 of the Act 允许 借方诉贷方与供应商如果供应商违反契约. Section 75 使贷方与 供应商对借方因供应商与事实不符的陈述负共同地和个别地责任, 在 有选择余地时非常有帮助 因为它可能无力履行
商务契约关系_Outcome_1
Outcome 1Case 11.Satisfactory quality: in British law, before there was a liability, the buyer warrants that the goods is of a reasonable quality and is suitable for any particular purpose not returned rules. In the law of Scotland, there is a principle, contract for the sale of goods is a good faith and the seller will sell goods, is worth the price. A number of factors are listed in section 14 ( b ) of the pupil 1979 might be appropriate in the circumstances, for the purpose of fitness goods sort problems usually provide: and complete; free from minor defects; safety; durability; Thomsongo Hills ( 1926)2. No, that between the contract and the seller. The seller must purchase price and compensation for any damage, defective goods may be caused by. Pupil 1979, provisions apply only to the buyer, not to any other party, such as a man who received the item as a gift, not to claim against the seller behavior.3.The 20 section of the unfair contract terms by 1977 state, any attempt to exclude or limit the liability for breach of contract 12 part is invalid. The contract must be " incorporated " or part of the contract. Consumer contract supply of goods and services covered by the act, as well as the employment contract and the apprentice. The beach of any obligation to take reasonable care to exercise reasonable skill to produce expression implied contract terms. Any attempt to exclude liability for death or personal injury caused by any breach of the obligation is invalid,4.The 16 part of ucta 1977 covers to the exclusion or limitation of liability and obligation of breach of contract or the contract notice. Liability for breach of contract is generally include the following. Any attempt to exclude other liability arising from loss or any breach of the obligation is only allowed to range, it is fair and reasonable in the unfair terms in consumer contracts stipulate 1999.the code is widely used in ucta 1977 and can be applied to the following conditions: articles related to the termination of the contract and fully informed about terms of delivery date; condition; allow supplier to increase fees and charges no negotiations. The 20 part of ucta 1977, as in 1 subjects, including attempts to the exclusion or limitation of liability concerning implied terms in the soca 1979. As previously discussed any clause in consumer contract invalid.5.Return and compensation. In a seller's breach of the terms of the contract, the buyer shall have the right to demand compensation for breach of contract, if the materials handling denial and rejection of goods. Part (2 ) in the contract pupil 1979 consumer contract, a breach of the terms implied terms of coverage on the theme of the 1 will be deemed to be a breach. This will allow consumers to return and claims. Additional rights buyers in consumer contract. Part 5 to soga1979 to provide additional remedies for consumers in the contract, the buyer of the goods does not conform to theprovisions of the contract at the time of delivery. The remedies available 48 soca 1979: repair or replacement goods; price; the termination of the contract.1。
104608business contractual relationships教学大纲
商务契约关系Business Contractual Relationship课程编号：104608 学分： 2开课学院：商学院课内学时：32课程类别：专业限选课课程性质：必修一、课程的性质和目的课程性质：《商务契约关系》是三江学院中英班的专业限选课程。
目的：通过向学生系统介绍有商务契约法律方面的基本知识和一般原理，结合学生对中国经济法律的认知，使学生对英国商务方面法律有基本了解。
同时，通过介绍英语及双语教学，使学生更快适应即将面临的国外生活和学习挑战。
二、课程教学内容及基本要求《商务契约关系》是一门全面阐述商务契约法律各个方面的基本理论、基础知识和各种适用法律条文及经典法律案例的课程。
主要包括Sale of Goods Acts, Law of employment, Law of Delict等相关法律。
通过本课程学习能够掌握英国商务契约法律的基本框架构成，了解经典商务法律案例，对英国和中国商务法律方面的异同有基本了解。
（一）课程教学内容及知识模块顺序1.知识单元一：Introduction to SQA （2学时）（1）知识点1：Purpose of this course（2）知识点2：Requirements of this course教学基本要求：（1）Understand SQA（2）Reading list and relevant legislation2.知识单元二：Introduction to 5 consumer protection legislation（14学时）（1）知识点1：Sale of Goods（2）知识点2：Unfair Contract Terms（3）知识点3: Consumer Credit（4）知识点4：False and misleading Trade Description（5）知识点5：Product Liability教学基本要求：（1）Understand different legislation relating to Sale of Goods（2）Application of different Acts（3）Termination and remedies of different Acts3.知识单元三：Law of employment （8学时）（1）知识点1：Contact of employment（2）知识点2：Justify: employee and employer（3）知识点3：Contact of service and Contact for service（4）知识点4：Terms of employment contacts（5）知识点5：Discrimination, Limitations and remedies教学基本要求：（1）Understand Law of employment（2）Application of Law of employment（3）Termination and remedies4.知识单元四：Law of Delict（2学时）（1）知识点1：Negligence（2）知识点2：Duty of care（3）知识点3：Remedies（4）知识点4：Business liability教学基本要求：（1）Understand Key words relating to the Law of Delict（2）Application of “Duty of Care”（二）课程的重点、难点及解决办法重点：本课程重点掌握包括Sale of Goods Acts, Law of employment, Law of Delict等相关法律的适用范围，违法惩罚，及法律救助条件；并通过案例分析，了解国内外商务法律的异同。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Generic goods:
1.
Goods which are not specific are unascertained and become ascertained goods when they are identified as the goods.
The contract is not terminated by frustration should the seller‟s supply of goods be destroyed.
Business Contractual Relationship
Unit Code: DE3F 34
Self Introduction
Liu Chang Master of Law – Civil Law Bachelor of Economics – International Trade 1999 – 2001: Teaching in Foundation
2001 – now : Teaching in HND
Introduction to the Upletion of this Unit, the candidate will be able to:
1. Describe the key statutory provisions relating to consumer protection.
Introduction to outcome 1
Knowledge and/or skills : ♦ Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended ♦ Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended ♦ Consumer Credit Act 1974 ♦ Trade Descriptions Act 1968
2.
1.
2.
3.
a)
b)
The ‘Price’: (p19) The price „may be fixed by the contract, left to be fixed in a manner agreed by the contract, or may be determined by the course of dealing between the parties‟ Where the price is not stated, the buyer must pay a reasonable price. The time of payment of the „price‟ is not to be regarded as of the essence of the contract. Except: The contract was induced by fraud; The terms of the contract state that it is of the essence of the contract.
Specific /unascertained /ascertained goods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Specific goods: those are identified as the goods to be sold at the time when the contract is made. Where goods, without the knowledge of the seller, have perished at the time when the contract is made, the contract is void. If goods perish without any fault on both parts and before the risk passes to the buyer, the agreement is avoided. General rule: risk passes with ownership.
Excluding:
1. 2.
Incorporeal moveables; Heritable property, such as land and building.
Existing /future goods: (p18)
Existing goods: those exist and are owned by the seller at the time when the contract is made. Future goods: those to be manufactured or acquired by the seller after the making of the contract. (as an agreement to sell)
Assessment guidelines: one closed-book exercise. be given 7-10 days before the assessment. be allowed to bring a copy of the case study and 2 sides of an A4 sheet of paper with relevant written notes. This material must be submitted with the candidate‟s written answer. Textbooks and class handouts will not be permitted. a maximum total duration of three hours.
The property (the ownership of the goods) cannot usually pass from seller to buyer unless, or until, the goods exist as specific or ascertained goods.
Outcomes 2 and 3 should each be assessed without supervision.
Section 1– outcome 1
Describe the key statutory provisions relating to consumer protection
1.1.2 What is a Contract for Sale of Goods? (p14)
Definition:
A contract for the sale of goods is „a contract in which the seller transfers, or agrees to transfer, the property in goods to a buyer for a money consideration, called the price‟
fulfilled then the contract would be „resolved‟ (dissobled). „sale‟
The case of Gavin‟s Trustee v Fraser (1920):
page 16.
Compared to others:
‘barter’: moveable property is exchanged for other moveable property without any money being paid. Not a „sale‟ and not covered by SOGA 1979. Apply common law.
Two types of Conditions: (p16)
A suspensive condition: the goods are
supplied „on approval‟. „agreement to sell‟
A resolutive condition: if the condition was
Topics:
1. 2. 3. 4.
Sale of Goods (p13) Sale of Goods: Transfer of Property, Performance & Breach (p38) Unfair Contract Terms & Consumer Contracts (p70) Misleading Trade Descriptions & The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (p97)
‘contract for the supply of services’: Subject to the common law of contract.
The ‘Goods’: (p17)
“all corporeal moveable except money; and in particular „goods‟ includes emblements, industrial growing crops and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under a contract of sale.”
1.1 Topic 1
Sale of Goods
1.1.1 Why Legislation? (p14)
To protect purchasers: Prior to this– upon the Roman law maxim of caveat emptor, or „let the buyer beware‟ Scottish common law: a contract bona fide or „of good faith‟. Sale of Goods Act 1893: throughout the UK Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA 1979) Amended by Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 and the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002