Contract Law & the Office PRO X9 Chair

This assignment explores various aspects of contract law through a scenario involving the purchase of an OFFICE PRO X9 chair. Students analyze whether certain statements made about the chair constitute express terms, determine the nature of a potential breach, and examine the impact of an exclusion clause on Peter's right to sue Forever Furniture for damages.

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 1
Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date Due

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 2
1. Is it a term of the contract that the OFFICE PRO X9 is an amazing chair and/or the
best on the market? Motivate your answer. (6 marks)
Issue
Forever furniture is the source of the statement that the chair will meet the
expectations of Mr. Peter. It is a general expectation that they have specialized knowledge of
the amazing chair more than their client Peter.
Rule
The statement is likely to be a contract term, nonetheless if it does not encompass the
statement in script it is less legally responsible and may to prompt the dissolution of the
agreement. According to the term of the contract, it requires that people involved be bound
by its term and not the statement made during or before the talk.1 In our case, the Forever
Furniture induced their client, Peter. Hence the inducement was promised, which is classified
as a collateral contract. In their statement they said, OFFICE PRO X9 being an amazing chair
or the best in the market. This is a statement that was made by one of the forever furniture to
encourage their client to purchase it. The term of the agreement can be described in a
scenario where before getting into a contract, there are several statements made to convince
other parties into it.2
Application
Whenever there is a dispute such statements made by any party to a contract, and in
our case, forever furniture, they are carefully considered as pertain to the term of the
contract.3 In some cases, the statement is an ordinary talk and not part of the contract. The
statements made by the seller to convince Peter to buy OFFICE PRO X9 are just peripheral
1 Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2010). Business law today: text & cases: e-commerce, legal, ethical, and
global environment. Mason, Ohio, South-Western Cengage Learning.
2 Gibson, A., & Fraser, D. 2010. Business law. Pyrmont, N.S.W: Thomson Reuters.

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 3
statements and not binding. Later, Peter gets disappointed, he believes that the fabulous chair
is not the best in the market as he was promised.
Not surprisingly, Peter is very disappointed with the chair. He does not think it’s a
fabulous office chair and he seriously doubts that it’s the best on the market. He want to sue
Forever Furniture as the OFFICE PRO X9 does not offer sufficient lower back support and
he is unable to work in his study the whole day as he intended. Then the court can look into
evidence of the intention by forever furniture to ascertain whether the statements are part of
the contract.4 If the time taken between when the statements were made and when the final
agreement was sealed is long, then it might be considered as a term of the contract.
Conclusion
In conclusion, OFFICE PRO X9 is an incredible chair and/or the finest on the market
place can overwhelmingly be thought to be a contract term.
2. Is it a term of the contract that the OFFICE PRO X9 provides sufficient lower-back
support to allow Peter to work comfortably the whole day?
Issue
The first step to determine whether the statement provides sufficient lower-back
support to allow Peter to work comfortably the whole day is a term of a contract but he need
to try it out in order to establish whether the company had their facts right.
Rule
Such statement that are made when parties are in negotiation can be categorized as a
representation or a term,5 and in case of a disputed, the plaintiff’s remedy will be based on the
classification of the statement.
3 Twomey, D. P., & Jennings, M. (2010). Business law: principles for today's commercial environment.
Mason, OH, South-Western Cengage Learning.
4 Gibson, & Fraser, 3
5 Miller, R. L., & Jentz, G. A. (2013). Business law today. Mason, Ohio, South-Western.

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 4
Application
The statement was made by one forever furniture to peter to induce him to enter into
the contract; in this case it can be categorized as representation.6 But the statement turned out
to be incorrect since Peter was unable to sit down the whole day without problem as was
promised. At this point, Peter has all the rights to sue for forever furniture for
misrepresentation. The failure of the chair to meet the expectations of the client is can be be
used to as evidence. Therefore, Peter is free to claim refund and compensation if he
experiences damages and from the disappointment of not getting what he bargained for. Peter
is at liberty to repudiate the contract. Peter may decide to sue and in case he does so, the court
will consider some factors in seeking to implement the parties’ intention to ascertain whether
the statement was a term of contract or representation.
Conclusion
The statement by one forever furniture to peter that the OFFICE PRO X9 provides
sufficient lower-back support to allow Peter to work comfortably the whole day was to
induce him to enter into the contract; in this case it can be categorized as representation.7
3. If it is a term of the contract that the OFFICE PRO X9 provides sufficient lower-
back support to allow Peter to work comfortably the whole day, what kind of term is
it?
(4 marks)
Express terms of contract
The statement OFFICE PRO X9 provides sufficient lower-back support to allow Peter
to do his job contentedly the whole day can be pre-empted or rather classified under express
contract terms. In such a form of contract, the parties involved state their term by either
6 Marson, J. (2013). Business law.
7 Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2014). Law and ethics in the business environment.

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 5
writing or orally during the negotiation or development of the agreement.8 In this case the
terms were set orally by the forever furniture attendant that the amazing chair would meet the
requirements that Peter would work all day without having lower back pain problems.
4. Does the exclusion clause, clause 10, prevent Peter from suing Forever Furniture for
contract breach because the OFFICE PRO X9 was not providing sufficient back
support to work the whole day? (6 marks)
Issue
For the exclusion clause to work, it must cover the breach.9 The case of OFFICE PRO
X9 not providing sufficient support to Peter to carry out his job the entire day is a break of
contract. The kind of liability arising from this situation is necessary to determine whether
Peter is at liberty of suing furniture forever for failure to fulfil the contract.
Rule
Liability resulting from office PRO X9 is severe liability. As defined by various
sources, strict liability is when a liability comes up due to the state of affairs in absence of the
party at the breach being at fault.10 In addition, liability is present in two ways, criminal or
civil context where the responsibility makes an individual legally responsible for damage and
others losses resulting from their action irrespective of their ability.
Application
There is no legal requirement to prove intention, fault or negligence under strict
liability.11 Strict liability under exclusion clause does not prevent Peter from suing furniture
8 Beatty, J.F. and Samuelson, S.S., 2012. Cengage Advantage Books: Introduction to Business Law. Cengage
Learning.
9 Elegido, J. M. (1996). Fundamentals of business ethics: a developing country perspective.
Ibadan, Spectrum Books.
10 Habert & Ingulli, 6
11 Marson, J. (2013). Business law.

BUSSINESS LAW & ETHICS 6
forever. All he has to do to win in strict liability case is to prove that, OFFICE PRO X9 was
sold in an unreasonably dangerous condition and that he could not use it as intended and
promised. Second, he must prove that forever furniture expected and destined for the product
to reach their clients without changes to the product. Third, he must prove that OFFICE PRO
X9 contributes to the lower back pain due to mere fact that it is a defective product.12
Conclusion
Strict liability under exclusion clause does not prevent Peter from suing furniture
forever.13
12 Conill, S. J., Lütge, C., & Schönwälder-Kuntze, T. 2008. Corporate citizenship,
contractarianism and ethical theory: On philosophical foundations of business ethics. Farnham,
England: Ashgate Pub. Co.
13 Avery, G. (2016). Law and Ethics in Nursing and Healthcare: An Introduction.
https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100037455842.0x000001.