Search results

The Mercini Lady Case is a modern statement of the law on the rights of the buyer in a sale contract. The seller has to supply goods in conformity with description, of merchantable quality and fit for the stated use. These rights, the ‘implied conditions’, however, can be ousted by express terms in the contract. The Court of Appeal judgement of the UK keenly considered that the exclusion clause should be interpreted in its business sense. However, it sided with precedence established over hundred years that the exclusion clauses take away valuable rights of the buyer and must be strictly and technically constructed.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

A buyer company has an advance payment stuck with the seller company and acts cautiously in not paying further till they get control over the goods. Claiming this to be a breach, the seller terminates the contract and makes claim for the damages. The seller picks all legal points it could in the routine business practices to escape the unfortunate situation. The judgment in the Toba Trade Case gives a comprehensive view of several legal themes including, payment and delivery, variation of contract, termination, anticipatory breach, award of damages and unjust enrichment.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

The founding principle of contracts is the freedom of the parties. The parties are free to choose their terms and follow any modality of communication, oral or written. As they can freely make a contract, they can freely modify or unmake it. Written contracts have a clause, No Oral Modification Clause (NOM Clause), precluding oral modifications of the contract. Irrespective of it, business persons make oral agreements modifying the contract, and later, dispute its validity. If the parties are free to contract, why should the oral agreement not be binding? In a NOM Clause then, ineffective? The United Kingdom Supreme Court, in MWB Business Exchange Centres Ltd v Rock Advertising Ltd, explores this fundamental question on contract law.

All business-to-business contracts have now come to be done on standard contract terms. Every company has its General Conditions of Contract on which it would deal with its customers. Business parties negotiate, converge and do business with each other. However, if a dispute arises, both the parties claim that there is a contract between them. And each party also claims that the contract is on its terms. The claim is important, for each party sets terms favourable to itself. This is called the ‘battle of forms’. The Butler Machine Tool Case of the Court of Appeal explores the rules of this battle.

The case deals with the issues of technology transfer and protection of intellectual property in an international contract, with the International commercial arbitration as the dispute resolution method. The case highlights the distrust between parties when they do not want to continue doing business together and the use of legal technicalities to delay the matter from settling and utter confusion due to international nature of contract, multiple court proceedings in different countries and even questioning the status of the contract – whether a concluded contract or not.

A room attendant in a small hotel with approximately 63 employees undermines her supervisors and disregards authority in deliberate defiance of company policies, rules, regulations and procedures. Disrespect is shown in several behaviours that include interfering with the work of other employees, spreading rumours, gossiping to other room attendants and complaining about unfair treatment.

This case was field researched and the company and individuals are disguised.

This case is suitable for third- or fourth-year undergraduate students. Within human resource management it is suited for use in a course or series of classes on employee relations or performance management. The case could also be used for an organizational behaviour course to explore conflict and struggle in organizations and the range of passive and active resistance practices that occur. In this particular case the context of women and minorities working in low-skilled roles could be examined.

In advance of this case students should have a background in performance management theory and practice, disciplinary systems and practice and the behaviours associated with workplace resistance, insubordination and misconduct.

Business contracts are formed through negotiations, where the parties agree on some terms, disagree on others and keep yet others undecided. Over a period of time, they see themselves as having moved from being negotiating parties to contracting parties, settling on most of the terms. The law, however, states that a contract is formed when a person makes an offer and the other accepts it. The principle arose from the rudimentary trade practices in the past. The principles coming from the prior centuries and the modern business practices may not be in consonance. The Gibson v. Manchester City Council Case, a judgement of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, reviewed attempts to modernize the law.