Introduction to Law for Commerce: Case Study on Goods and Services

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of a case study involving Ceramic Tiles Fiji (CTF), Delivery Fiji, and three customers: Melissa, Smith, and Misha. It examines the transfer of risk under the Sale of Goods Act, focusing on when the risk of loss or damage passes from CTF to the customers. The report details the remedies available to Melissa and Misha, who experienced issues with their deliveries, including incorrect goods and non-delivery. It also assesses the liability of Delivery Fiji to all three parties and explores the remedies and defenses Delivery Fiji could employ. Furthermore, the report analyzes the arguments CTF could use to dispute allegations, addresses CTF's potential exemptions from liability, and examines Smith's position regarding insolvency. Finally, the report considers the potential for deceptive and misleading commercial practices by CTF and Delivery Fiji, offering insights into their responsibilities and potential consequences. The assignment covers a variety of legal aspects and provides insights into the commercial responsibilities of both the seller and the delivery company.

Introduction to Law for
Commerce

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
Transfer of risk once goods left from CTFs delivery area...........................................................1
Remedies available to Melissa and Misha...................................................................................1
Liability of Delivery Fiji to Melissa, Smith and Misha...............................................................2
Remedies and defences will delivery Fiji advance in favour......................................................2
Arguments given by CTF advance in its favour to dispute various allegations..........................3
CTF exemption from all liabilities..............................................................................................3
Smith’s position with respect to insolvency................................................................................4
Indulgence of CTF and Delivery Fiji in deceptive and misleading commercial practices..........4
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................5
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION
Sale of goods act helps in understanding the provisions with respect to buying and selling of
goods. The report makes comprehensive discussion regarding Transfer of risk once goods left
from CTFs delivery area. The report will then focus on various types of remedial measures that
can be taken in case of Melissa and Misha. The report then discuses regarding Liability of
Delivery Fiji to Melissa, Smith and Misha, that is, all the three parties involved in different
contracts with respect to buying and selling of goods. In the end, measures available with respect
to the solvency of Smith will also be taken into consideration by CTF.
Transfer of risk once goods left from CTFs delivery area
The cases discuses regarding Melissa, Smith and Misha, who were about to get delivery
from Ceramic Tiles Fiji. However, due to certain issue in the delivery being arranged by the
company from services of Delivery Fiji (Karan, 2015). The risk can be transferred from on
individual to another as per the sales of goods act of Fiji, when it is ultimately delivered to the
customers. Since, delivery already lies in the hands of the organization, it is their duty that the
goods can ultimately be transferred to the clients in the end. Further, it must also be taken into
consideration that the goods already left the destination of CTF where, the responsibility lies in
the hands of the organization to ensure that the goods are ultimately delivered appropriately to
the ultimate customers.
Further, transferring risk or goods to the other individual can only be possible in the case
when the possession of it has not been transferred to him or her. Hence, it can be stated that the
risk of goods cannot be transferred once they left from CTF delivery area unless and until the
delivery of the same has not be initiated and handover of the goods have not been provided to the
ultimate customer (Khatri, 2016). In the given case scenario, possession of the goods is not yet
transferred to the customers. Hence, it can be stated that the risk can not be transferred once
goods left from CTFs delivery area.
Remedies available to Melissa and Misha
Since, right deliveries have not been able to reach to Melissa and Misha, in this scenario,
there are various remedies which are available to Melissa and Misha which can be taken into
consideration by them. They have right to sue CTF for receiving no or wrong deliveries.
Damages can be claimed by the parties stating that the ultimate delivery received by Melissa is
not appropriate as she did not receive the colour which was actually ordered by her. However, on
1

the other hand, Misha was not able to receive any kind of delivery on the due date from the side
of CTF, where she has already paid the amount for the chosen tile box. Hence, it can be stated
that they both have right to receive the claim for the damages they ultimately received
(Schwenzer, Hachem. and Kee, 2012). Moreover, they have right to gain for the amount paid and
also for the damages as compensation which was already been received by Melissa and Misha.
Liability of Delivery Fiji to Melissa, Smith and Misha
Since the goods were already transferred from the side of CTF and then initiated for
delivery with the help of Delivery Fiji, the responsibility of appropriate delivery lies in the hands
of Delivery Fiji. Hence, it can be stated that the liability is with Delivery Fiji for which CTF is
also responsible for taking adequate steps for the same (Farran and Paterson, 2013). Further, it
was the responsibility of delivery Fiji to ensure that all the material is transferred to the
respective consumers in such a manner that right box is delivered to the right candidate. Further,
one of the box of Melissa was stolen in between, and wrong box was ultimately delivered to him.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the hands of Delivery Fiji to ensure that right type of delivery
has been initiated to the three.
Considering the case of Smith, he was able to receive right box. However, he has not been
able to make payment of the tile boxes he actually purchased from the side of CTF. However, the
delivery received by him from the side of Delivery was correct (Scheyvens and Russell, 2012).
Hence, in this case, no liability with respect to Smith lies in the hands of delivery Fiji as he is not
responsible to get the payments for the product delivered to the customers.
Remedies and defences will delivery Fiji advance in favour
The argument that can be presented from the side of Fiji in case of Melisa is that the
delivery can be returned within 3 days only. Melissa is at mistake that she did not open the
packet after receiving the package and let unopened for the next two weeks. The duration of
returning the item has already expired which is why she has no right to take or demand any type
of claim from either CTF or delivery Fiji. In this manner remedies can be demanded by delivery
Fiji advance in his own favour in case of Melissa (Finizio, Ahmed and Umberger, 2016).
Considering the case of Misha, it can be stated that since, she did not get any delivery of
her ordered products, she has right to claim for damages or compensation from both the
organization, that is CTF and delivery Fiji. In this case, delivery Fiji can present his argument in
this case, that the responsibility for lost lies in the hands of CTF and not in the hands of the one
2

who is involved in ultimate delivery. It is due to the reason that CTF did not transfer any type of
ownership of the product to delivery Fiji and it is not the responsibility of the organization to pay
for the damages.
Considering the case of Smith, it can be stated that there is no role of delivery Fiji in this
aspect as it does not have to take payment from him and his duty only ends with the delivery of
goods. Since, the contract was signed between Smith and CTF delivery, it is their responsibility
to ensure that if the payment has been received by them or not (Chang, 2017).
Arguments given by CTF advance in its favour to dispute various allegations
There are several arguments that can be presented by CTF advance in his favour at the time
of dispute on all the three allegations being found. The contract was signed between CTF
advance and delivery Fiji to ensure that all the deliveries will ultimately be made by delivery
Fiji. Moreover, any discrepancy found in this process will make the delivery company
responsible and it has to compensate on behalf of the organization to the ultimate customers for
undelivered or wrongly delivered items.
Melissa has received wrong consignment which makes the delivery Fiji responsible for the
ultimate product received by her (Ahmadu and Hughes, 2017). It this scenario, CTF can make
the argument that it was the responsibility of Fiji delivery to ensure that right product is delivered
to the ultimate customers.
Further, considering the case of Misha, since it was the duty of Fiji delivery to transfer the
products to the ultimate customers, the lost of any type of consignment lies in the hands of
delivery Fiji. Hence, in this manner, CTF advance can put his side of the argument in his own
favour.
CTF exemption from all liabilities
CTF can not be exempted from all the liabilities and hence, he needs to bear the loss of
Misha due to no consignment being delivered to him in the end. Moreover, Smith getting
insolvent and not able to pay any type of compensation which was required to be paid in against
of the goods being purchased by him from CTF. It can be stated that the ultimate results of non-
payment are to be borne by the parties which are actually involved in the contract (Ariyaratne,
2016).
However, in case of Melissa, CTF will not be under any type of liability as she was at
mistake that she did not open the package being delivered to her immediately before accepting
3

the delivery and signed the docket slip before checking on the same. Further, it has be ensured
that Mish a has not got her deliveries and it is the duty of CTF to deliver her with the products
being ordered by her.
Smith’s position with respect to insolvency
Smith’s position with respect to solvency can be stated that he may be demanded with the
consignment which has already been transferred to him. The organization have right to sue Smith
and get the compensation back in the form of assets. The decision regarding compensation then
lies in the hands of court. If the individual is proved to be insolvent and if court has also proved
the same, then in that case, the amount to be compensated from the side of Smith is required to
be transferred in the bad debts account (Saraf and Kazi, 2013).
Further, in case of Smith, the organization can also demand their products back from the
side of Smith so as to recover the amount. In this manner these steps can be taken by the
organization to ensure that all the money has been compensated from Smith’s side and if certain
amount is left uncompensated then it will ultimately be transferred as bad debts.
Indulgence of CTF and Delivery Fiji in deceptive and misleading commercial practices
It would not be right to blame both the companies for misleading commercial practices as it
was just because of their carelessness through employees that lead this situation to happen
where one box for delivery was misplaced and other delivered to wrong destination. It does not
state that these are the consequences of misleading commercial practices as if the aim of both
organisation was to practice something unethical they might have not sent one box to the wrong
destination. As it happened for the first time customers should seek it as a case of negligence or
carelessness from which they can ask for the compensation for the harm that was created due to
this incident (Mayer, 2013). Customer can sue both the companies for this mistake but they
should provide them a chance for rectification so that they can rectify and compensate for the
damages done which is a very serious issue. It has harmed their goodwill with respect to the
customers which might result in losing customers and also their trust on the company. But it can
be taken as a learning for both the organisation and should implement the steps to avoid these
kinds of situations in future. May be due to lenient nature of the employees it leaded towards the
direction of a big error in their history which not only damaged the image of them in the whole
market but also lead to fall in their market share as the investor cannot take risk in investing for
such companies who can perform such disaster in the industry. These companies now should
4

adopt a modified and some strict management strategy that would lead to keep a check on every
transaction of delivery and the activities of employees so that no such chance could be created.
Also, more supervisors should be appointed to mentor the lower employees. They should also
investigate regarding the case to find out what is the actual reason for the mistake (Transferring
contracts and rights of third parties, 2018).
CONCLUSION
From the above report, it can be concluded that, the case describes the discrepancies in the
delivery that took place in context to the consumers where a box was lost in between and the
other box was wrongly delivered. Considering the concept of Sales of Goods Act of Fiji, it can
be stated that it depends on the contract that whether CTF will be held liable for the practices that
are being taken place at the delivery of consignment or Delivery Fiji will be held responsible for
it. Moreover, in case of Smith, the amount can be taken in the form of asset. However, if the
amount can not be compensated by him, then in that case ultimately it has be marked as bad
debts in the books of accounts of CTF.
5

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Ahmadu, M. L. and Hughes, R., 2017. Commercial Law and Practice in the South Pacific.
Taylor & Francis.
Ariyaratne, N., 2016. Can indigenous customary law be used and recognised in international
commercial contracts?.
Chang, Y. C., 2017. Wealth Transfer Laws in 153 Jurisdictions: An Empirical Comparative Law
Approach.
Farran, S. and Paterson, D., 2013. South Pacific property law. Routledge-Cavendish.
Finizio, A., Ahmed, S. and Umberger, W., 2016, February. Understanding the Relationship
between Production Diversity and Dietary Quality in Smallholder Farm Households in
Fiji. In 2016 Conference (60th), February 2-5, 2016, Canberra, Australia (No. 235301).
Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
Karan, R., Balancing Consumer Interests against the Interest of Credit Providers in Fiji:
Consumer Credit Act.
Khatri, B., 2016. Getting the definition of'consumer'right-Worrying about the smaller ones in
Fiji.
Mayer, A. C., 2013. Caste and Kinship in Central India: A Study of Fiji Indian Rural
Society (Vol. 1). Routledge.
Saraf, B. and Kazi, A. U. S., 2013. An analysis of traditional rules applied by Australian courts
to establish personal jurisdiction and their application in e-commerce. Computer Law &
Security Review. 29(4). pp.403-412.
Scheyvens, R. and Russell, M., 2012. Tourism and poverty alleviation in Fiji: Comparing the
impacts of small-and large-scale tourism enterprises. Journal of Sustainable
Tourism. 20(3). pp.417-436.
Schwenzer, I., Hachem, P. and Kee, C., 2012. Global sales and contract law. Oxford University
Press.
Online
Transferring contracts and rights of third parties. 2018. [Online]. Available through <
https://www.lexisnexis.com/uk/lexispsl/disputeresolution/synopsis/94424:108582/
Claims-and-remedies/Transferring-contracts-and-rights-of-third-parties >
6