Commercial Law Problems with Solutions 2022

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW
COMMERCIAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMERCIAL LAW
Problem 1
Sub section 2 of section 14 as provided in the Sale of Goods Act of the year 1979 states
that the quality in relation to the goods and commodities sold should be acceptable and
satisfactory. This particular Act forwards an objective test in order to determine and decide the
satisfactory quality. The test provides the standard that any rational or reasonable individual
would consider to be satisfactory, after taking regard of description, the price and any other
pertinent factor. Certain factors shall be considered, which may decrease or increase the
expectation regarding satisfaction. For instance, in Bernstein v. Pamson Motors Ltd [1987] 2
ALL ER 220, it was said that second hand commodities or goods may appeal lower expectation.
In the case of R v Kylsant [1931], it had been mentioned that a misrepresentation shall be
considered to be a misleading or an untrue statement relating to fact, which has been made by
one party to the other, during the negotiations. Such misrepresentative statement must have
induced the other party to establish a contract.
Sub section 1 of section 21 as mentioned in the aforementioned Act provides that in a
circumstance where the commodity or the good has been sold by any individual who may not be
the actual owner, and who has no authority or consent to sell the good, then in such circumstance
the purchaser shall not have any title to such goods. This rule has been discussed in the case of
Greenwood v Bennett (1973).
i. In this instance, applying sub section 2 of section 14 as provided in the Sale of Goods Act
of the year 1979, it may be said that Mary shall have the accountability to fix and repair
the damages occurred to the car.

2COMMERCIAL LAW
ii. Applying the case of R v Kylsant [1931], Jack may file a suit against Mary by claiming
damages for misrepresentation regarding facts.
iii. In this instance, applying sub section 2 of section 14 as provided in the Sale of Goods Act
of the year 1979, it may be said that jack may file a suit against Mary for defective
product and the quality not fulfilling the statutory requirements of the aforementioned
Act. Applying Bernstein v. Pamson Motors Ltd [1987] 2 ALL ER 220, Mary may raise
the defense that second hand product appeal lower expectation in relation to the quality.
iv. Applying sub section 1 of section 21 as mentioned in the aforementioned Act, it may be
said that Jack shall have no title to the car, although he may file a suit against Mary for
damages.
Problem 2
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is whether Caroline would be successful
regarding her claim, and if she is able to succeed, then what damages may be received by her.
Rule
The case of British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91 is a significant case in
connection to the provided situation. In this specific case, a suggestion has been forwarded that
the question that should be asked by the judges is whether any particular reasonable employer, in
relation to the circumstances of the case, would have discharged or dismissed the employee.
The case of Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309 shall be regarded as a relevant case
in connection to the provided circumstance. In this specific case, it was stated that an adequate

3COMMERCIAL LAW
warning should be provided in any kind of misconduct. Dismissing an employee without a prior
warning shall be considered to be unfair.
The case of Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486 must be considered to
be a relevant case in relation to the provided situation. In this specific case, it was said that
conduct is primarily regarding willingness, which may be the failure to utilize the talent either
because of carelessness or because of laziness. The employee may also not utilize his talent
through misbehavior. Hence, the employee purposely declines to perform the job.
The case of Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1980] ICR 755
shall be regarded as a pertinent case in connection to the provided situation. In this case, it was
stated that if it has been stipulated by the employment contract that a specific process or method
should be adhered to prior to the dismissal of an employee, then any particular dismissal that
may be carried out without following that specific process or method shall be considered to be
essentially wrongful.
The case of Laverack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278 must be considered to
be a relevant case in relation to the provided situation. In this case, it was stated that if the
accountability of the employer is established, then the loss relating to earnings from the time of
dismissal (even the day on which the hearing is held) shall be included within the scope of the
loss.
Application
Applying British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91, it may be said that the
question that should be asked by the judges is whether any particular reasonable employer, in
relation to the circumstances of the case, would have discharged or dismissed the employee.

4COMMERCIAL LAW
Applying Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309, it may be said that an adequate
warning should have been provided by St. Catherine’s to Caroline.
Applying Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486, it may be said that St.
Catherine’s must prove that Caroline failed to utilize the talent either because of carelessness or
because of laziness, or due to misbehavior, and hence, Caroline purposely declined to perform
the job.
Applying Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1980] ICR 755, it
may be stated that if it has been stipulated by the employment contract of Caroline that a specific
process or method should be adhered to prior to the dismissal of an employee, and if she is
dismissed without following that specific process or method, then such dismissal shall be
considered to be essentially wrongful.
Applying Laverack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278, it may be said that if
Caroline succeeds in her claim, then the loss relating to earnings from the time of dismissal (even
the day on which the hearing is held) shall be included within the scope of the damages.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that Caroline may succeed in her claim, and if she is able to
succeed, then damages from the time of the dismissal may be received by her.
Problem 3
Issue
The primary issue in the provided scenario is whether what would be the legal actions
that may be given effect to against Mick, and whether Mick will be able to obtain the patents.

5COMMERCIAL LAW
Rule
The case of LTJ Diffusion v Sadas. Vertbaudet SA, Case C-291/00 [2003] F.S.R 34 must
be regarded as a significant case in connection to the provided scenario. In this particular case, it
was stated that a specific sign shall be considered to be similar and identical to a specific
trademark, where all the components in relation to the trademark have been reproduced and
without any kind of alteration or modification.
The case of Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 shall be considered
to be a relevant case in relation to the provided scenario. In this specific case, a threefold test had
been reaffirmed by the Court. Firstly, a reputation or goodwill must be established in relation to
the services or goods. It may be any particular trade description or a specific brand name.
Secondly, a misrepresentation to the general populace on the part of the defendant must be
established. It means that it must be shown that the general public believe that the services or
goods, which are offered by the defendant in actuality, are being offered by the plaintiff. Thirdly,
it must be established that damages has been suffered due to such act of misrepresentation.
The case of Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's
application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 shall be regarded as a significant case in connection to the
provided situation. It was mentioned in this specific case that a patent shall be considered to be a
legal grant for the establishment or creation of a new fresh invention. Such right permits the
patent owner to take proper legal action against any individual who may make an attempt to
utilize the invention without any permission.

6COMMERCIAL LAW
Application
Applying LTJ Diffusion v Sadas. Vertbaudet SA, Case C-291/00 [2003] F.S.R 34, it may
be said that a specific sign shall be considered to be similar and identical to a specific trademark,
where all the components in relation to the trademark have been reproduced and without any
kind of alteration or modification. Hence, in the given scenario even though the furnishings of
the inside are different, but the outside is identical to that of Mickey’s Restaurant.
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873 shall be applied in the
provided scenario. Firstly, a reputation or goodwill must have been established Mickey’s
Restaurants regarding its restaurants. Secondly, a misrepresentation to the general populace on
the part of Mick must be established. Thirdly, it must be established that damages has been
suffered by Mickey’s Restaurants due to such act of misrepresentation.
Applying Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's
application [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, it may be said that a patent shall be considered to be a legal
grant for the establishment or creation of a new fresh invention. Hence, such right shall permit
Mick to take proper legal action against any individual who may make an attempt to utilize the
invention without any permission.
Conclusion
To conclude, it can be said that the legal actions relating to misrepresentation and
damages may be taken by Mickey’s Restaurants against Mick, and Mick shall be able to obtain
the patents.

7COMMERCIAL LAW
Problem 4
Issue
The primary issues in the provided scenario are as follows:-
 What shall be the basis for Katherine and Rick to initiate a legal action against Brad and
Bradco Ltd. and whether Brad can be made privately accountable?
 Would circumstances be any distinct if Katherine would have been privately engaged by
BBB?
Rule
The case of Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905 shall be considered to be a significant
case in connection to the provided scenario. In this case, the responsibility of utmost good faith
had been established. It was mentioned that a particular party should disclose or reveal every
relevant and material facts to the other parties in relation to a contract.
The case of Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90 is regarded as an important case in this
regard. In this specific case, it was said that no party who may be involved in a particular
contract shall conceal any pertinent facts or conduct in a fraudulent manner.
The case of Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 shall be considered to be an important
case in connection to the provided situation. It was mentioned in this case that the corporate veil
may be lifted by the courts if the corporate structure has been utilized in order to commit fraud.
Application
Applying Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905 in the provided situation, it may be said
that Brad should have disclosed or revealed every relevant and material facts to Katherine and
Rick in relation to their contract.

8COMMERCIAL LAW
Applying Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90, it may be said that Brad should never
have concealed any pertinent facts or conduct in a fraudulent manner.
Applying Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832 in the given scenario, it may be said that
the corporate veil may be lifted by the courts if the corporate structure has been utilized in order
to commit fraud.
Conclusion
To conclude, it may be said that:-
 Katherine and Rick may initiate a legal action against Brad and Bradco Ltd. for fraud and
concealment of pertinent fact and Brad can be made privately accountable.
 The circumstances would not be any distinct if Katherine would have been privately
engaged by BBB because the same rules relating to fraud and disregard of corporate veil
would be applicable in her case.

9COMMERCIAL LAW
References
Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holding Ltd and others, and Neal William Macrossan's application [2006]
EWCA Civ 1371.
Airbus UK Ltd v Webb [2008] IRLR 309.
Bernstein v. Pamson Motors Ltd [1987] 2 ALL ER 220.
British Leyland UK Ltd v Swift [1981] IRLR 91.
Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905.
Greenwood v Bennett (1973).
Gunton v Richmond-upon-Thames London Borough Council [1980] ICR 755.
Horsfall v Thomas (1862) 1 H & C 90.
Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832.
Laverack v Woods of Colchester Ltd [1967] 1 QB 278.
LTJ Diffusion v Sadas. Vertbaudet SA, Case C-291/00 [2003] F.S.R 34.
R v Kylsant [1931].
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873.
Sale of Goods Act, 1979.
Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall [1978] IRLR 486.