Business Law Case Study: Sales Law, Torts Law, Property Law Analysis

This assignment presents a series of business law case studies, each requiring the application of relevant legal theories. The cases cover scenarios involving personal property disputes (engagement ring), tort law (injury at a department store), sales law (banana order dispute), consumer protection (faulty coffee maker), agency law (unauthorized contract), and product liability (mislabeled paint). Each case analysis identifies the applicable legal principles and provides a reasoned argument based on the facts presented, citing relevant legal sources. The solutions discuss potential legal actions and defenses available to the parties involved, offering a comprehensive overview of the legal issues at stake. Desklib provides access to this and other solved assignments to aid students in their learning.

Business Law Assignment

Table of Contents
Answer 1....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 2....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 3....................................................................................................................................3
Answer 4....................................................................................................................................4
Answer 5....................................................................................................................................5
Answer 6....................................................................................................................................5
Answer 7....................................................................................................................................6
References..................................................................................................................................6

Answer 1
Peter gave Sally an engagement ring and proposed her, however, after few days; Sally
refused to marry him and threw the ring given by Peter in the ocean. Peter had to hire a
submarine to search for the ring in the ocean floor but failed to find it. As the ring was his
personal property, Personal Property Law and Civil Law both are applicable in this condition
and Peter can sue Sally, as she threw her ring in the ocean for where it was impossible to be
collected back (Justia, 2018). If she did not want to marry him, she should have given the ring
back to Peter instead of throwing it in the ocean. However, it was a gift but, if she refused to
marry him, she had no right over the possession of ring and should have immediately
returned to Peter (Britannica, 2018).
Answer 2
When Mary was walking past the Masee’s Department Store, the big M from the store’s sign
fell striking Mary and caused her severe personal injuries. It was a severe negligence on the
part of departmental store, as there were no employees of the store working or nearby the
sign. The tort law is applicable in this case as due to the negligence of the departmental store
owners, Mary got severely injured. Furthermore, the sign was attached by cables to the roof
of the building and there were no employees of Masee’s on the roof as well. Mary can take
tort lawsuit against Masee’s for negligence on their part. In order to prove the negligence of
Masee’s, Mary will have to provide the evidence either in the form of pictures of the accident
area or the people who can provide evidences as well.
Answer 3
The Sale of Goods Act of US considers a legally enforceable contract of sale, if it fulfils the
requirement which include an offer to be accepted by the other party and exchange of value

or promises in order to take action in future. Frank ordered 10 pounds of bananas to be
delivered in 2 weeks by Walter, considering it to be a good deal. It shows the contract to be
offered and accepted by the other party, immediately after which, Walter sent an order
confirmatory email to Frank in which, the order of 100 pounds of bananas to be delivered in 2
weeks was confirmed by them. It was negligence on the part of Frank that he did not read the
email and after 2 weeks, when the delivery was completed, he refused to pay for the extra 90
pounds of bananas. It is clearly his mistake and he should pay for the whole order. In this
context, Walter is right as he might have mistaken in taking the order but, when he sent the
confirmatory order, Frank should have read it carefully.
Answer 4
Bill purchased a coffee maker and on his way to home, he dropped it once or twice. After
reaching home, when he took it out from the box and plugged it, it exploded and caused
severe injuries to Bill. However, he negligently handled the appliance and dropped it; he can
take legal action against the manufacturer of coffee maker under Consumer Rights, saying
that he has received a faulty piece of coffee maker (HG.org, 2018). On the other hand, the
manufacturer can take defence of the distributor’s and packager’s mistake because they
manufactured the appliances but, safe packaging and delivery and sale of the products might
damage the piece particularly those which are delicate or electrical or electronic appliances.
The electronic appliance will have to be taken back by the manufacturer and testing of the
appliance would reveal the exact reason behind the explosion in the appliance (Brown, 1908).
Furthermore, electronic and electrical items are to be tested and checked before purchasing it,
so manufacturer can take the defence of the negligence of Bill, as he did not get the item
checked before purchasing it.

Answer 5
Bill and Ted were friends and had no business relationships. Ted acted on behalf of Bill and
signed the contract of sale as the agent of Bill. The Agency law states that an agent has to be
authorized to act on behalf of the Principal for the purpose of creating a legal relationship
with third party (HG.org, 2018). In this case, the first scenario would be that Bill has not
appointed Ted as his agent so; he is not liable for any action taken by him on his behalf (US
Legal, 2018). Secondly, third party who entered into contract with Ted should have asked for
the consent of Bill as the Principal in writing before entering into contract, so he cannot take
legal action against Bill as it was their mistake as well but can take legal action against Ted
for forgery.
Answer 6
Louisa asked for the black paint in a store and the clerk without saying anything, given her
metallic surface paint. Louisa painted the wooden table with that paint but, it did not adhere
to the table because it was strictly for metallic surface. She can sue the paint store for not
providing her with the proper information about the product before selling it to her. She can
use Sale of Goods Act as a legal theory because it is considered as the responsibility of the
seller or trader to provide all the specific information about the product and asking the
customer about the purpose and such other queries before selling the product (Ho, Proctor,
Patterson, & Dickinson, 2017). The clerk did not ask her anything and neither provided any
information to her about the product. So, she can take legal action against the paint store on
this basis.

Answer 7
Gold watch was the private property of James and he wanted to give his gold watch to his
close friend 25 years before in a serious condition, when he was severely injured due to an
accident. He promised him the watch in that condition when he was not in his conscious state.
After 25 years, there is no validity of that promise because firstly, when he promised to hand
over his watch to his friend he was not in a state to promise anything and secondly, he
recovered from that injury from which, he believed that he might die. His wife should not
hand over the watch to John as it was his private property and nobody can claim it without his
consent (HG.org, 2018).
References
Britannica. (2018). Objects, Subjects, And Types Of Possessory Interests In Property.
Retrieved from britannica.com:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/property-law/Objects-subjects-and-types-of-
possessory-interests-in-property
Brown, R. (1908). The Law of Sales in the United States. Columbia Law Review, 8(2), 82-95.
HG.org. (2018). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved from Hg.org:
https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
HG.org. (2018). Consumer Rights - Consumer Protection Law. Retrieved from hg.org:
https://www.hg.org/consume.html
HG.org. (2018). Personal Property Law. Retrieved from hg.org:
https://www.hg.org/personal-property.html
Ho, M. S., Proctor, M. M., Patterson, M., & Dickinson, K. R. (2017). Sale and storage of
goods in the United States: overview. Retrieved from Thomsonreuters.com:
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-618-0307?

transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&comp=pluk&bhc
p=1
Justia. (2018). Various Items of Personal Property v. United States, 282 U.S. 577 (1931).
Retrieved from supreme.justia.com:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/282/577/
US Legal. (2018). Agency Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved from Uslegal.com:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/agency/