Business Law Assignment

This Business Law Assignment provides an overview of the English legal system, including civil law, criminal law, and alternative dispute resolution. It discusses the key elements of the English common law system, the branches of civil and criminal law, and the purpose of alternative dispute resolution. The assignment also includes a case study on liability for defective bricks. Subject: Business Law, Course Code: N/A, Course Name: N/A, College/University: N/A

1
Business Law Assignment

2
Part 1a
The English legal system I commonly is known as the English common law. These are the laws
prevalent in England. From these laws, various other legal systems of different countries have
been derived from (Gillespie, 2013). They are authoritative by nature. The citizens of England
are bound by the laws of the country. They have to be abide by the laws under their common
law, legal system. In case there are violations of the conditions of law, they would be exposed to
different kinds of punishments depending upon their acts. The key elements of the structure of
the English common law system means and includes: all these laws and regulation are created by
the parliament and the legislative organ of the government of England. Apart from the laws,
there are regulations and by laws. There plenty of acts enforced under the English legal system
regarding the different fields of occurrences that take place in the lives of the people. The laws of
the common law have also been derived from judicial precedents, customs, usages, norms and
traditions, some laws are derived from the principles of natural justice, equity and good
conscience (Cownie, Brandney & Burton, 2013). There are two most important branches of the
English legal system. They are: Civil laws and Criminal Laws.
The first and the foremost branch of the English legal system includes the civil laws. It is often to
as a non criminal law in the countries of United States of America, Pakistan, England and Wales.
The law relating to the civil aspects is different from the criminal law from many respects. The
civil law basically deals with the civil matters of the society. The civil law is further divided into
many branches. Some of these branches include income tax, property, contracts, torts, personal
laws, laws relating to business and companies, legal methods, administrative law, laws relating
to lands and acquisition etc. most of the civil laws are not codified. But there are many laws
which are codified as well. Most of the civil laws are determined from the age old customs and
usages and the judicial precedents. Crimes are not included under the branch of civil law. In case
of violation of the rules of the civil laws, the punishment is given by the courts in the form of
compensation, damages, fines, specific reliefs and the like (Jackson & Summers, 2012).
The laws relating to quasi contracts are inclusive under the civil law. The branch of civil law can
be further divided into substantive and the procedural or Adjective laws. The primary purpose of
the laws of civil nature is to understand the rights and duties of the persons towards each other as
well as towards the society. Under the various punishments of the civil law granted by the

3
violation of the civil, there can be exemplary, nominal, compensatory or punitive damages
depending upon the act of the people. Under the English legal system, the burden of proof is
always upon the parties who bring the case to the court. It is some upon the party who is
aggrieved, to prove to the court that he has been aggrieved (Reinach & Crosby, 2013). The trial
further proceeds with the witness and evidences brought by the parties. The burden of proof is
upon the balance of probabilities. It shifts under the civil law. The parties under a civil suit are
commonly known as the plaintiff and the defendant. Under civil wrongs, there are several
exceptions, which act as defence for the defendant parties. The act of God (vis major), plaintiff
the wrongdoer (Volunti non fit injuria), act of necessity, actions undertaken by the statutes,
private defence are the instances of the general defences under civil law. The important cases
which are very in the civil branch of the English legal system includes, Donoghue v Stevenson,
Derry v Peek, Rylands v Fletcher, Ashby v White etc. thus, the civil law under the English legal
system consists of various important elements which are essential for the smooth functioning of
the society. Crimes do not happen every day. But all the people in the society across the globe
are engaged with civil matters all the time. The civil law is that branch of law which provides the
rule and regulations which required is the day to day lifestyle of the people (Zuckerman, 2013).
The second branch of the English legal system includes the criminal law. The criminal law deals
with the crimes and the worse situations which take place in the society. Crime can be defined as
the wrongs which are committed against the persons in the society. The aggrieved party suffers
to a greater extent when compared with the wrongs of the civil law. The suffering can extend to
the causing death of the parties. The crimes are caused not to the aggrieved persons alone but to
family and relatives. The also suffer for the loss. Thus, crimes are always committed against the
society (Cassese, Acquaviva, Fan & Whiting, 2011). Consequently, the punishments are also
greater. The punishments under the criminal law includes imprisonment and imposition of fine
together, solitary confinement, death penalty or capital punishment. The burden of proof under
the criminal laws under the English legal system is always upon the parties who brings the case
to the court. Such a person is called the prosecution. The burden of proof is always upon the
prosecution to prove the case. It ne never shifts. It is upon the prosecution to proved the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubts and not only upon the balance of probabilities. In case the
prosecution fails to do this, the accused would not be convicted (Halder, Jaishankar &
Jaishankar, 2012). This principle is based upon the adversarial culture. The criminal

4
jurisprudence under the English common law believes in the adversarial system of law. This
means that no person can be presumed to be guilty unless proven guilty. The English legal
system provides the accused with the fair chance of defending himself at all times during the
trial. He cannot be convicted of any offence unless he is proven guilty beyond reasonable doubts.
The criminal law under the English common law is more complicated upon its comparison with
civil law. There are various kinds of trials of the different offences ranging from the most t
serious to the petty offences. There are warrant trials, summons trial, summary trial and the
sessions trial. Some of the civil wrongs are also included in the arena of the criminal judicature.
The civil wrongs which affect the society at large are included. Some of them are public
nuisances, wrongful confinement, negligence etc. The evidence act comprises the rules for both
civil and criminal laws. For the existence of crime, there should be the existence of mensrea, that
is, guilty mind (Carson, 2018). Unless there is the presence of the guilty mind the act of the
parties cannot be considered as crime. There are various defences available at the criminal
judicature, they include doli incapax (a child below 7 years of age cannot commit a crime). Jus
necessitus (necessity), accidents, private defence, acts justified by law etc. in order to keep the
society safe and happy, the crimes have to be stopped and the offenders have to punished to
create an example in the society that the consequence of a crime can be dreadful. Important case
laws include Dudley v Stephens, Naz foundation case etc.
Thus, the above were the major branches of law under the English legal system.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution is commonly abbreviated as ADR. It is the process of the
resolving the disputes which has arisen between the parties in a different way. These conflicts are
resolved through other authoritative bodies other than courts. Under this method, the conflicting
parties come to a mid way decision either through a mild litigation process or through
agreements and settlements (Hollander-Blumoff & Tyler, 2011). In this way, the conflicts
between them are resolved and the courts are also not involved. Thus, the parties who were under
disagreement before, come under an agreement with the id of the third parties. The main purpose
of the introduction of the Alternative dispute resolution is to reduce the burden of cases which
are pending the court. The less serious offences and issues are included under the arena of the
external dispute resolution. The more serious offences remain with the courts to be adjudicated.
The chief purpose of the Alternative dispute resolution is to provide speedier justice to the

5
people, save time and energy of the parties as well as the authoritative parties (Ridley-Duff &
Bennett, 2011).
The most common ways of redressing the disputes under the Alternative dispute resolution is
through conciliation, mediation, negotiation, arbitration, usage of collaborative laws. These
methods of redressal can be used side by side with the functioning of the courts in England.
Under this process of resolving the conflicts, they are widely classified into two broad categories.
The initial method involves the resolution of the disputes externally, that is, outside the judicial
fraternity. The second method includes the cordial and the informal methods which are attached
to the courts (Blake, Browne & Sime, 2016). To add to this, there are independent ways of
resolution like the mediating programs and the office of the ombudsman within the particular
organizations. Under the system of the Alternative dispute resolution there are formal as well as
informal tribunals, the formal procedures of mediation and other informal methods. The age old
method of the dispute resolution in the alternative sphere has always been arbitration.
Though there plenty of benefits of the Alternative dispute resolution, yet their purpose is to
provide aids to the courts. The purpose is not to replace the courts. The judiciary is a very
essential organ of the government in England. The chief functions of the courts include the
adjudication of the offences, to resolve disputes and to punish the offenders. This is the process
of giving justice to the people. The powers of the courts are wide. They are empowered to deal
with the most serious and the most complicated cases arising in the society. The courts are
empowered with the laws and the regulations to deal with all these cases. They are also
empowered to provide greatest punishments for the greatest punishments. The procedure of the
court may be time taking, but it is considered to be the best way to provide justice to the people
of England, (Goldberg, Sanders Rogers & Cole, 2014). This is because all the cases are heard in
every detail so that every corner of the case comes under the court and justice is not denied to the
people, the people have abiding faith in the courts that justice would be delivered to them. To
keep this faith intact, the courts work hard to resolve the cases. The case laws to support this
proposition includes Marmet Health Care Centre v Brown, Rachal v Reitz, Eagle v Fred Martin
Motor Co and Loyer v Signature Heakthcare of Galion. Thus, they can in no means be replaced
by the Alternative modes of dispute resolution. The Alternative dispute resolution is a mode to
support the courts while they deal with pettier offences. They are helpful in the reduction of the

6
burden of the courts so that justice can be delivered to the people soon. But they can in no ways
replace the courts. This is because the courts are empowered to function in such ways and to do
such things, which can neither be done by the other organs of the government or by the
alternative dispute resolution (Lumineau & Malhotra, 2011). That is why the courts are given the
status of independence in the government unlike the executive and the legislature.
Thus, after a close perusal of the above it can be concluded that the Alternative dispute
resolution methods should not replace the courts as an avenue for the resolving of disputes. The
responsibility of the courts should be performed by them, so that justice can be delivered in the
right way.
Part 1b
Facts of the case:
Paul is making his new holiday home on an exposed sea side. He goes to the local building raw
materials suppliers called, Brick-for –All for the purchase of bricks. Paul specifies that he wanted
to buy bricks for outside use. However, he did not say clearly where would be the location of his
house. Paul chooses the type of bricks he desired, from a wide variety of bricks shown by Brick-
for-All. The type of brick chosen by him was called Sparkling Bricks. The manager of Brick-for-
All is Aileen. Aileen wanted to have a conversation with Paul about the challenges and the
limitations of the Sparkling Bricks. Aileen was reluctant about this, because Paul wanted to
purchase all the bricks in a haste. A contract was signed between Aileen and Paul after that. In
consequence of the contract, the bricks were delivered to Paul. Consequently, Paul started his
construction for the house. Sparkling Bricks is composed of compressed paper. It is not made of
clay like other bricks. The sparkling bricks which were exposed to the side of the sea were under
constant touch with the sea waves. As a result of which there was a chemical reaction with the
salts present in the sea. The bricks become permeable and there tends to be the formation of
damp. Due to these damages caused to the building, there were irreparable damages and it
caused the habitation of the human beings impossible. Ultimately, Paul had to destroy the
building which he had constructed.

7
Issues Involved:
After going through the facts of the case, the issues which have arisen is that what would be Paul
entitled to receive upon suing Brick-for –All? The other issue is that whether Bricks-for-All
would be liable to pay compensation to Paul?
Provisions of Law:
The consumer rights act of 2015 was designed by the parliament of United Kingdom to provide
protection and security to the consumers from the frauds and misleading activities of the sellers
in the market. It provides ample rights, interests and remedies to the customers so that they
cannot be cheated upon, by the sellers (Dowler & O’Connor, 2012). As per the provisions of the
consumer rights act of 2015, the products purchased by the sellers should be of the desired
quality as per the needs of the consumers. The consumers possess the right to decline the offers
of purchasing inferior quality products for their use. With the passing of this right, the consumers
have been gifted with the right to reject all those products which do not serve the purpose of their
particular needs (Prothero et al., 2011). It is essential that the quality of the products should bring
in high satiety value to the consumers.
After a close perusal of the facts of the above case, it is important to classify certain conditions.
When Paul was purchasing the bricks from Brick-for-All, he was in a very hasty situation. He
did not pay heed to many factors, which were required to be held important on his part. Upon the
suit against Brick-for-All, the defence can argue upon the concept of ‘caveat emptor’. It means
the buyer should beware (Larsen & Lawson, 2013). Unless the buyer calls for the relevant
information and the requisites of the particular goods, the silence of the seller will not be
considered as a violation of the consumer rights. On the contrary there definitely lies a duty upon
the seller to disclose all the relevant facts, advantages and the disadvantages of the products sold
by him to the buyer. Failing to do this task would render the seller responsible for the violation
of the rules of consumer protection. Consequently, the seller would be liable to pay
compensation (Howells & Weatherill, 2017).
In the case, it cannot be said that the seller had not disclosed the relevant information. Brick-for-
All had asked Paul for the specifications for the buying of bricks. In answer to this, Paul had only
specified the house (Mak, 2011). It was very much essential on his part to disclose the location

8
of his house, the weather conditions of the and the purpose. Had Paul disclosed all the facts, he
could have prevented Brick-for-All to sell him Sparkling bricks which were made of compressed
paper instead of clay. Hence, there was no fault of Brick-for-All from this aspect (Sirieix, 2013).
After that, the manager of the brick company called Aileen wanted to have a word with Paul to
discuss about the limitations of Sparkling Bricks. But Paul was so engrossed in the construction
of his house at the earliest possible way, that he did not meet Aileen to discuss about the
challenges of the type of bricks chosen by Paul. There was no fault on the part of the seller here,
as well (Alsmadi & Alnawas, 2012).
Regarding the quality of the product sold, the bricks were made up of compressed paper instead
of clay. Naturally, they were completely decayed due to the chemical reaction with the sea water.
Paul was not aware of the quality of his bricks on account of his personal negligence. He was
under so much haste that he did not pay attention to the types of bricks purchased by him under
contract. As a result of this, he had to demolish the house totally (Tobler, Visschers & Siegrist,
2012).
Decision
From the above facts of the case and the provisions of law involved, it can be concluded that
there was no fault on the part of the seller (Brick-for-All). There was negligence on the part of
the buyer (Paul). Thus, the buyer would not be entitled to receive compensation from the seller
on account of his demolition of the building. The terms of their contract was upon the
information given by the buyer. Hence, Brick-for-All would not be liable to pay compensation to
Paul.

9
References
Alsmadi, S.A. and Alnawas, I., 2012. Consumer Rights Today: Are They in Business or Out of
Business?. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(1), p.159.
Blake, S.H., Browne, J. and Sime, S., 2016. A practical approach to alternative dispute
resolution. 8th ed. London: Oxford University Press.
Carson, W.G., 2018. The sociology of crime and the emergence of criminal laws: A review of
some excursions into the sociology of law. In Deviance and Social Control (pp. 67-90).
Routledge.
Cassese, A., Acquaviva, G., Fan, M. and Whiting, A., 2011. International criminal law: cases
and commentary. Oxford University Press.
Cownie, F., Bradney, A. and Burton, M., 2013. English Legal System in Context 6e. Oxford
University Press.
Dowler, E.A. and O’Connor, D., 2012. Rights-based approaches to addressing food poverty and
food insecurity in Ireland and UK. Social science & medicine, 74(1), pp.44-51.

10
Gillespie, A., 2013. The English legal system. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, S.B., Sander, F.E., Rogers, N.H. and Cole, S.R., 2014. Dispute resolution:
Negotiation, mediation and other processes. 5th ed. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Halder, D., Jaishankar, K. and Jaishankar, K., 2012. Cyber crime and the victimization of
women: laws, rights and regulations. 5th ed. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Hollander-Blumoff, R. and Tyler, T.R., 2011. Procedural justice and the rule of law: Fostering
legitimacy in alternative dispute resolution. J. Disp. Resol., p.1.
Howells, G. and Weatherill, S., 2017. Consumer protection law. Routledge.
Jackson, J.D. and Summers, S.J., 2012. The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond
the common law and civil law traditions. 6th ed. London: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen, G. and Lawson, R., 2013. Consumer rights: a co-optation of the contemporary consumer
movement. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 5(1), pp.97-114.
Lumineau, F. and Malhotra, D., 2011. Shadow of the contract: How contract structure shapes
interfirm dispute resolution. Strategic Management Journal, 32(5), pp.532-555.
Mak, V., 2011. Standards of protection: In search of the Average consumer of EU law in the
Proposal for a consumer rights directive. Eur. Rev. Private L., 19, p.25.
Prothero, A., Dobscha, S., Freund, J., Kilbourne, W.E., Luchs, M.G., Ozanne, L.K. and
Thøgersen, J., 2011. Sustainable consumption: Opportunities for consumer research and public
policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(1), pp.31-38.
Reinach, A. and Crosby, J. eds., 2013. The Apriori Foundations of the Civil Law: Along with the
Lecture" Concerning Phenomenology". 8th ed. London: Walter de Gruyter.
Ridley‐Duff, R. and Bennett, A., 2011. Towards mediation: Developing a theoretical framework
to understand alternative dispute resolution. Industrial Relations Journal, 42(2), pp.106-123.

11
Sirieix, L., Delanchy, M., Remaud, H., Zepeda, L. and Gurviez, P., 2013. Consumers'
perceptions of individual and combined sustainable food labels: a UK pilot investigation.
International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(2), pp.143-151.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V.H. and Siegrist, M., 2012. Addressing climate change: Determinants of
consumers' willingness to act and to support policy measures. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 32(3), pp.197-207.
Zuckerman, A.A., 2013. Zuckerman on civil procedure: principles of practice. 7th ed. London:
sweet & Maxwell.