Assignment on Law of Partnership Act 1963
Added on - 21 Apr 2020
Running Head: Law1Law
Law2Part 1Answer 1.1Issue:Whether C&K Scaffolding and Partners are bound for the promise made by one of its partnerCahill?Law:Section 9 of the partnership Act 1963 states the provisions related to power of certain partners tobind the firm. As per this section partner of the firm is considered as the agent of the firm andalso of other partners in the firm for the purpose of conducting the business of the firm. This canbe understood through case lawWatteau v Fenwick  1 QB 46: V & L, 19.44.Section further states that act done by partner in his capacity of partner for the purpose ofconducting the business of the firm, binds the firm and other partners in the firm unless personwho act is not authorized to act on behalf of the firm for that particular matter and the person towhom with partner deals has knowledge that the partner has no authority to act on behalf of thefirm.As stated above, partner is the agent of the firm and other partner in the firm, which meansgeneral rule is applied that principle is liable for the act done by it’s agent.Application:In the present case, C&K Scaffolding and Partners of the firm is liable under section 9 of the Actwhich states that act done by partner in his capacity of partner for the purpose of conducting thebusiness of the firm, binds the firm and other partners in the firm. Cahill is also considered as anagent of the firm, and promise made by Cahill is binding on the firm. Therefore, firm is liable forinstalling the technical tower, providing spot light ramp and certification for that purpose.
Law3Conclusion:Partners of the firm are liable to installing the technical tower, providing spot light ramp andcertification for that purpose.Answer 1.2Issue:Whether seller breaches any provision of the sale of Goods Act 1923 by providing low quality ofgoods to the buyer?Law:Section 19 of Sales of Goods Act 1923 states provisions related to implied quality, and as perthis section there is no provision which states any implied warranty in terms of quality andfitness is applied or any type of goods which are delivered to the buyer under the contract of sale.This general principle has exception also:When buyer expressly or by implication states the particular purpose to the seller for whichgoods are purchased, buyer depends on the judgment of the seller, and the goods sell by sellerare of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply then in suchsituations implied warranty related to quality and goods of the business is applied for suchpurpose.Section further states that when goods are brought by description from the seller who sells thegoods from that description, then in such case implied condition is applied that goods must be ofmerchantable quality.Application:
Law4In the present case, Seller of the goods deliver the goods which are not of merchantable quality,and in this case implied condition is applied because buyer expressly or by implication states theparticular purpose to the seller for which gods are required and the goods sell by seller are of adescription which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply.After considering the above facts, it is clear that Soccer Super Store is liable to send qualitygoods to the Nick and by delivering low quality goods, Soccer Super Store breach section 19 ofthe Act.Conclusion:Soccer Super Store is liable to send quality goods to the Nick and by delivering low qualitygoods, Soccer Super Store breach section 19 of the Act.Answer 1.3Issue:Whether any obligation is arise to sell the T-shirts to the Melanie for $13?Law:It must be noted that agent is under duty to follow the terms and instructions given by theprinciple. Employee is also considered as the agent of the employer, and as per rule employer isvicariously liable for the acts of the agent. This can be understood through case lawMitorInvestments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd and Australian