Law Of Obligations - The Uni Tutor

By Author: Mark Johnsons
Total Articles: 75
Comment this article

PART I
1. In April 2007 supermarket Masda ran extensive advertising campaigns on TV containing the information ‘Special Offer: Box of 6 bottles of quality French wine for£6.99. Limited Stock.Only available on request in store’. Arnold, a wine expert, ranto the supermarket to ask for a box, only to be told that there was only one box left.Happy to have secured at least one, Arnold placed the box in his trolley andcontinued his shopping. In the meantime another customer, Tim, picked the boxfrom Arnold’s trolley and went to the check out. Arnold, realising what happened,caught up with Tim at the check out and argued that the box was actually his andthat Tim had no right to buy it. Tim did not want an argument and gave the boxback to Arnold. The assistant at the checkout however, refused to sell it for theprice of £6.99 arguing that if anyone should have the box, it should be Tim and thatanyway the offer had been revoked by a notice on Masda’s website that morning.The box was on sale for its normal price of £39.99.


Advise Arnold. You can employ our services to obtain custom essays to provide ...
... essay help for you.

2. Leo visited electrical goods store Pixons and purchased a new toaster. When he opened the toaster box he found a document entitled “Manufacturer’s Guarantee” which stated that if Leo fills in the enclosed postcard providing his details and posts it back to the manufacturer Burn Electrics Ltd he will be entitled to one year’s free service or a refund of the purchase price if the toaster proves defective. Leo sent the card. After 6 weeks the toaster started malfunctioning. Leo took it back to Pixons who refused a refund but offered a replacement arguing that it was not their fault and suggested that if Leo wanted a refund he should contact the toaster’s manufacturer. Leo did not accept the replacement and said he wanted a refund instead. Leo also contacted Burn Electrics who said they could not help as the contract was between Leo and Pixons.

Advise Leo considering both statute and common law.If you use our essay help service, your custom essays will provide answers and give you the essay help you need.

PART II

4. “The decision in Williams v Roffey Brothers has brought the common law in line with business expectations but has not gone far enough.”

Discuss.

5. “There is no necessity that promissory estoppel should only be used as a shield.”

Discuss.

6. “Lord Denning in Liverpool City Council v Irwinwas correct to suggest that the courts should employ a test of reasonableness when implying terms into contracts.”

Discuss. You can buy custom essays from us using our custom services. Our custom essays are entirely plagiarism free.

Mark Johnsons is an expert on the topic Essay Writing Service. He always strives to bring good advice on how to get Custom Essays online