Legal Analysis of Cornelius' Case: Property Management Firm

This report provides a legal analysis of Cornelius' case, who is the owner of a property management firm. It discusses his legal rights to claim products and refund in different scenarios. The report covers topics such as contract law, consumer protection law, and online purchasing. It also discusses the impact of false advertisement and the legal obligations of both parties involved in the buying and selling process.

Introduction to government and
Law

TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Demonstrating whether Cornelius is entitled to desk:.................................................................4
Demonstrating whether Cornelius have right to claim computer:...............................................4
Demonstrating whether Cornelius is entitled to claim back the 500 euros which he have paid
to bank account of Mr C Rook:...................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................6
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION
Law is one of the most important pillar of a country which allow government as well as
people to be safe from any kind of illegal activity. There are many cases where new law has been
designed and implement to manage upcoming cases, law is wide term which include civil law,
business law and other forms of law (Arrowsmith, 2018). This study is based on case of
Cornelius where Cornelius have started property management firm. This report will discuss case
of Cornelius and understand its legal rights to claim product.
MAIN BODY
Demonstrating whether Cornelius can claim refund he paid for building A:
Contract law state that agreement can be made informally which still have power to bind
and take legal action against party or company, Contract law have three main principles which
justify whether law suit will be consider by court or this will be dismissed. These three principles
are; offer, acceptance and consideration. Offer provided by seller and accepted by buyer become
an agreement or contract, in the case of Cornelius, he will not be refunded because exchanging
offer and accepting contract bind both parties. Under general rule of English Contract law,
agreement will be formed if any of party have accepted offer, notification of acceptance is point
where seller become safe against law suit of buyer (Garnett and Parsons, 2017). It is very clear
that exchanging amount of product between both parties form an agreement, if buyer and seller
have legal agreement where terms and condition are mentioned then both parties have to review
these terms and process further. Continuing the case of Cornelius, there was a formal contract
where clear terms and condition is being defined, Cornelius have no right to file law suit against
owner of building A because exchange was done and agreement was made.
Offer: under Contract law, offer is expression of willingness which clearly means both
parties are ready to craft agreement. Cornelius have showed interest in building A and have
exchange contract which fall under willingness to buy the building.
Acceptance: English Contract law state that acceptance of offer fall under agreement
which can be consider in civil court and both parties can formulate case. Owner of building A
have accepted offer of Cornelius which again become part of contract which can be formulate in
the court.

consideration: consideration is one of the most important part where both parties consider
final agreement and agree to process further, here any modification in contract can be consider.
Cornelius have made contract with owner of building A and made final agreement which he later
withdrawal and asking for refund which clearly not possible because final agreement was made.
Demonstrating whether Cornelius is entitled to desk:
Wrong advertisement is one of the most complicated thing for both, buyer and seller, here
buyer will fall under serious issue if he fails to advertise correctly. Under Consumer Protection
law, advertiser cannot mislead consumer with false message, expression or price tag at the
product. Unfair Trading Regulation, seller need to be careful while placing price at the product
because if buyer shows interest at the intended product then they have right to take away that
product. In the case of Cornelius, he has right to take away product but at lower price which will
be negotiated by the seller, Under Consumer Right 2015, if product is wrongly advertise at low
price, consumer still have power to buy that particular product in same price. Here Cornelius is
eligible to buy desk at lower price, he can use his Consumer Right and can claim the desired
product (Poole, 2016). It is very clear that, shop is performing wrong advertisement to attract
consumer, this is considering as false method of advertising and fall under unfair trade practice.
although, seller still have right to negotiate product price which can be consider by buyer if they
want to.
Under marketing and advertising law, company or shop can not use power of marketing to
sell or promote their products, UK’s Consumer Protection process state that consumer have
rights to claim what they have seen in the advertising and seller can not deny to provide product.
Lowering price of product to attract consumer become legal obligation where consumer can
claim product at low price, as the result, Cornelius have right purchase that desk at highlighted
price tag at the window.
Demonstrating whether Cornelius have right to claim computer:
Online purchasing of product have become quite complex for consumer as scam are
rapidly growing and misleading consumer and violating their right. It is very clear that, false
advertisement not only become issue for consumer but this create serious problem for marketer
as well. There are many cases where false marketing as lead to serious problem to the company,
online false marketing is considering as scam. In the case of Cornelius, under Consumer
Protection Act, Cornelius have right to claim product which he have purchased online. it is very

clear that this was simple process of buying and selling which was violated by Mr C Rook as he
denied to provide purchase product.
Cornelius can file case against Mr C Rook and its electronic shop where he sell products,
under Right to be informed, Cornelius have right to stand against any act of dishonesty. In this
case Mr Crook have impacted one of the major consumer right of Cornelius which made him
able to claim purchased computer. Mr C Rook can not stand against Cornelius because under
Contract law, an agreement was made between Cornelius and Mr C Rook because here Mr C
Rook have asked for payment which means offer provided by Cornelius is been accepted and
Under Contract Law, acceptance of offer become an agreement which can be cancelled by Mr C
Rook. Cornelius have full rights to claim purchase computer.
Demonstrating whether Cornelius is entitled to claim back the 500 euros which he have paid to
bank account of Mr C Rook:
Under Contract Law, payment of product amount is consider as willingness to buy product
which means both parties have accepted offer and formed a contract. contract between two
parties if formed with different method, this contract can be formal and informal. In the case of
Cornelius where he made payment to Mr C Rook which formed an contract of buying and
selling, Mr C Rook can cancel selling of product under certain condition but can not cancel
repayment to Cornelius because he have made contract with Mr C Rook and this firm. Under
Consumer Right, Cornelius have right to claim back 500 euro which he have deposited as
security amount in the bank of Mr C Rook.
It is very clear that Cornelius and Mr C Rook had understanding between them allowing
them to manage buying selling process (Smits, 2017). In this case, Cornelius not only can use his
legal rights but he can file law suit of robbery because his money was not refunded. In this case,
false advertisement can be seen where son of Mr C Rook have mislead Cornelius and created a
fake environment of buying selling process. Cornelius can use three point to file case against Mr
C Rook and its company, firstly act of fraud where Mr C Rook failed to provide purchase
product of Cornelius which was consider as intellectual right. Secondly he can claim his money
under Consumer right. At last, Cornelius can file case of False advertisement and can stand
against Mr C Rook and his company.

CONCLUSION
This report has discussed law and analysed its importance in the consumer buying process.
later this report has discussed case of Cornelius and understand which right he can use in given
case study. At last, this report has discussed legal rights and duties of Cornelius and its impact on
other party.

REFERENCES
Books and journals
Arrowsmith, S., 2018. The Law of Public and Utilities Procurement Volume 1 & 2: Regulation
in the EU and the UK. Sweet and Maxwell.
Garnett, K. and Parsons, D.J., 2017. Multi‐case review of the application of the precautionary
principle in European Union law and case law. Risk Analysis, 37(3), pp.502-516.
Poole, J., 2016. Textbook on contract law. Oxford University Press.
Smits, J.M. ed., 2017. Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.
1