Business Law Case Studies: Analysis of Disputes, Contracts, and Torts

This document presents an analysis of three business law case studies. The first case examines a dispute involving a partnership and a car purchase, focusing on breach of contract and partnership agreements. The second case revolves around the sale of goods law, addressing misleading information and contract terms in a car sale scenario, as well as false advertising of products. The third case involves the law of torts and simple contracts, examining an employment dispute regarding promised compensation. Each case study includes the identification of the parties, the legal issues involved, applicable laws and principles, and a conclusion on the likely court outcomes. The analysis covers a range of legal concepts, including contract law, partnership law, and the sale of goods, providing a comprehensive overview of business law principles and their application in practical scenarios.

BUSINESS LAW 1
BUSINESS LAW
By Name
Course
Instructor
Institution
Location
Date

BUSINESS LAW 2
CASE STUDY 1.
Parties: who are the 2 (Min) parties who have this issue in dispute?
The main parties involved in this case study will be the representative of the three partners whose
aim is to purchase a new Ute from Mighty Motor PTY limited. This representative is called
Lance. The other party involved in this case is Lynton who happen to be car sale person on
behalf of Mighty Motor PTY limited.
Issue: 1. what is the area of law that will apply to this question
This case study involves the application of partnership money or property by a general partner on
behalf of the partnership business. Therefore, the area of law that will be applied in this case is
an improper use of trust property for partnership other than an incorporated limited partnership
or improper use of trust property for incorporated limited partnership (Cheeseman 2015). This is
because Lance improperly used more money to purchase new Ute from Mighty Motor PTY
limited than the limit agreed by the partners under consideration.
2. What will the Court have to decide to resolve the problem?
Once this matter is filled to the court of law, the court needs to consider several aspects. The
court needs to decide whether the purchase was correctly done by satisfying both sides. In any
purchase, there should be a willing buyer and a willing seller, both sides need to be satisfied in
terms of the transaction (Cheeseman 2015). Provisions of all terms of contact need to be in place.
The court will decide which party is liable to the contract so as to resolve the problem.
Rule: What are the Legislation and/or the Cases that the court will look at to find the
answer to this problem?
The court needs to get evidence that Lance was provided with purchase limit by the other
partners. This must be provided in written form or through proposed invoice for that purchase to
prove that the purchase limit was $20,000. The court also needs to know whether Lynton was
aware of purchase limit so as to decide the best direction of the case (Jennings 2014). Finally, the
court must be provided with provisions of partnership agreement stating the verdict of such
occurrence. By considering all that information, the court will be in a position to resolve the
problem.

BUSINESS LAW 3
What are the principles that will come from each section/case and help us work out an
answer to this question?
The principles applicable in this case study will be based on terms of contact along with
principles governing partnership business operations (Jennings 2014). From the analysis of this
case study, Lance entered into a contractual agreement with Lynton. Although Lance was acting
as an agent of the partnership is a general partner, he used more money to purchase new Ute
from Mighty Motor PTY limited. Thus, the principle applicable here is a breach of trust of the
partnership agreement.
Apply: List ALL the important elements of the Legislation (section) or the case that will
provide a solution to the problem.
Elements of legislation governing the case study.
1. Breach of contract
2. Breach of trust of the partnership agreement.
3. Misapplication of partnership property by a general partner.
Find the part in your case that satisfies this element; find all elements and say why this
element is satisfied.
Breach of contract occurs where Lance failed to notify Lynton on purchase limit. In that case, the
contract entered between Lance and Lynton make be subjected to termination. It is subject to the
possibility of termination if the court deems the contract unforeseeable (Hitt 2014). Breach of
trust occurs where Lance purchases the new Ute at $25,000 despite the purchase limit at $ 20,000
by other partners. The extra $ 5,000 is a misapplication of partnership property.
Conclude: if ALL the elements of the Legislation or case authority are satisfied, then the
Section or case will be followed by the court and a decision will be made.
What is the result when the section/case authority is followed?
The court is likely to rule in favor of Lynton who happen to be car salesperson on behalf of
Mighty Motor PTY limited. This is because, despite knowing purchase limit of $20,000, Lance
purchased the new Ute at $ 25,000. Again, Lynton was not aware of purchase limit.

BUSINESS LAW 4
Who wins (succeeds)?
Lynton will win the case since the contract was binding on his side.
Is there a penalty?
No penalty imposed in the case.
Does one person have to pay damages or follow a specific order from the Courts?
The person to pay for damage will be Lance. The action of one partner makes his personally
liable for the damage. The other partners are not liable for actions committed by Lance. The
partnership will be bound to this contract since Lynton was not informed about purchase limit.
They can sue him to pay the extra $5,000 since he breached trust provided in the partnership
agreement.
CASE STUDY 2
Parties: who are the 2 (Min) parties who have this issue in dispute?
The main two parties involved in dispute under this case study Saqlaim from Syria who allegedly
aims at buying the car and the partnership aiming at selling the car through Lance who is a
general partner in that partnership (Robert & Emerson 2015). The other party involved in this
case is Xiaojing and the consumers of his products.
Issue: 1. what is the area of law that will apply to this question?
The area of law that applies to this case is the sale of goods law. The sale of goods law refers to a
contract where the seller (partnership) agrees to sell a given property or transfer ownership of the
property to a buyer in a money consideration called price (Robert & Emerson 2015). The seller is
the partnership represented by Lance. The buyer is Saqlaim from Syria and the property under
transfer is a car. The other aspect of this case is false information provided by Xiaojing regarding
his business products of lavender and Echinacea moisturizer.
2. What will the Court have to decide to resolve the problem?

BUSINESS LAW 5
In order to resolve the problem, the court will make sure that Saqlaim from Syria understands
terms of the contract to purchase the vehicle. Since he does not understand English language,
Saqlaim from Syria needs to be provided with terms of contact in the best language he
understands (Mackey & Gass 2015). Once he agrees to those terms, the court may decide to bind
that contact where the partnership transfer the car to Saqlaim from Syria.
Rule: What are the Legislation and/or the Cases that the court will look at to find the
answer to this problem?
Legislation in this case.
Provision of misleading information.
Understanding of terms of agreement contract in best language.
What are the principles that will come from each section/case and help us work out an
answer to this question?
The principles applicable in this case will be based on contact with the sale of goods law (Peng
2013). By considering the requirements of a particular product, the court will be able to verify
the contact as either unforeseeable or foreseeable.
Apply: List ALL the important elements of the Legislation (section) or the case that will
provide a solution to the problem.
Elements of the sale of goods law include seller, property, and goods (Saloner 2009). Other
elements applied in solving this case include Provision of misleading information and
understanding of terms of agreement contract in best language.
Find the part in your case that satisfies this element; find all elements and say why this
element is satisfied.
Provision of misleading information is demonstrated where Xiaojing assert that the business
produces an advertising flyer that states the moisturizer will ‘slow the effects of ageing’. This
information is misleading to consumers and the law prohibits a business from giving misleading
information to consumers. For the transfer of car from partnership to Saqlaim from Syria, an

BUSINESS LAW 6
element of sale of goods is satisfied because the buyer, the seller and the good are in place
(Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill 2012). What needs to be satisfied in terms of the agreement in a
language understood by Saqlaim from Syria.
Conclude: if ALL the elements of the Legislation or case authority are satisfied, then the
Section or case will be followed by the court and a decision will be made.
What is the result when the section/case authority is followed?
Saqlaim from Syria will not be bound by the contract if he does not understand terms of the
contract in his own language. If the terms of contact are provided in his own language than he
will be bound by the contract (Saunders Lewis & Thornhill 2009). The consumers have to be
compensated if any damage arises from the false information provided by Xiaojing.
Who wins (succeeds)?
The consumers will win the case since the law prohibit the businesses from providing false
information regarding their products.
Is there a penalty?
Xiaojing may be subjected to a penalty equivalent to damage caused by his products to the
consumers of his products.
Does one person have to pay damages or follow a specific order from the Courts?
Xiaojing can be subject to payment of damage for providing false information about his
products.
CASE STUDY 3.
Parties: who are the 2 (Min) parties who have this issue in dispute?
The parties to be considered in this case will involve Felix who works for Xiaojing and Xiaojing
who offer work to Felix.

BUSINESS LAW 7
Issue: 1. what is the area of law that will apply to this question?
This case is based on the law of tort. A tort can be defined typically as a civil wrong other than
breach of contract that results in damage to the other party (Segal-Horn 2009). This also falls
under the law of contract in simple contracts.
2. What will the Court have to decide to resolve the problem?
The court may decide to revisit the terms of the contract to see whether Felix need to be paid $
100 as promised by Xiaojing. However, the court may also consider that initial term of the
contract.
Rule: What are the Legislation and/or the Cases that the court will look at to find the
answer to this problem?
The court may consider the rule of Rylands v Fletcher to answer this problem.
What are the principles that will come from each section/case and help us work out an
answer to this question?
The principles to be considered in this case will be based on whether Felix suffered actual
damage from the action of his employer.
Apply: List ALL the important elements of the Legislation (section) or the case that will
provide a solution to the problem.
The elements of the legislation, in this case, will relate to elements of the law of contact. That is
simple contacts, offer, acceptance, capacity, and intention.
Find the part in your case that satisfies this element; find all elements and say why this
element is satisfied.
The part of this contract that satisfies this element is simple to contact. There is contact that does
not result to or not subject to any legal formality (Hughes 2008). Such as oral contract, written,
partly oral or partly written contracts.

BUSINESS LAW 8
Conclude: if ALL the elements of the Legislation or case authority are satisfied, then the
Section or case will be followed by the court and a decision will be made.
What is the result when the section/case authority is followed?
Since the initial contract entered between Felix and Xiaojing was legally binding, then Xiaojing
is required to pay the initial $ 25 per bag. Thus, the extra $ 100 Xiaojing promised to give Felix
was not part of the contract. It is simply a tort that does not result in a contract (Tallman 2009).
Since the promise of $ 100 was done orally, it results in a simple contract which is not subject to
any legal formality. Felix has no case against Xiaojing.
Who wins (succeeds)?
Xiaojing wins the case since $ 100 was on a simple contract with no legal formality.
Is there a penalty?
No fine imposed.
Does one person have to pay damages or follow a specific order from the Courts?
Xiaojing will be required to pay Felix the initial $ 25 per bag since that was binding before Felix
started working for Xiaojing.

BUSINESS LAW 9
References.
Cheeseman, HR 2015, Business Law, Pearson.
Hitt, MA 2014, Strategic Management: Concept, Competitiveness and Globalization, South-
Western College Pub.
Hughes, D 2008, The Ultimate Supply Teacher’s Handbook, Continuum International Publishing
Group Ltd.
Jennings, MM 2014, Business: Its Legal, Ethical, and Global Environment, South-Western
College Pub.
Mackey, A., & Gass, SM 2015, Second language research: Methodology and design, Routledge.
Peng, MW 2013, Global Strategy, South-Western College Pub.
Robert, W & Emerson, JD 2015, Business Law (Barron’s Business Review Series), Barron’s
Educational Series.
Saloner, G 2009, Strategic Management, Wiley Publisher.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P & Thornhill, A 2012, Research methods for business students, Pearson.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A 2009, Research methods for business students, Pearson.
Segal-Horn, S 2009, understanding Global Strategy, Cengage Learning.
Tallman, S 2009, Global Strategy, Wiley-Blackwell.