Case Study Questions Arguments By Dough And Bonnie

Case Study Questionsarguments By Dough And Bonniedough And Bonnie Are

Arguments by Dough and Bonnie Dough and Bonnie are likely to argue that there was misrepresentation on the part of the brick manufacturer. This is in light of the fact that Dough and Bonnie sought the expert advice from the manufacturer regarding the best bricks that the two could use to cover the exterior of their house. Although the manufacturer’s sales representative showed Dough and Bonnie several types of bricks, he was particular on one type of brick and recommended it to Dough and Bonnie. They relied on the manufacturer’s representative’s advice and proceeded to purchase the type of brick that the representative recommended. Accordingly Dough and Bonnie would argue that the whole process was a sale by sample.

The representative showed Dough and Bonnie a sample of the brick that he recommended to them. The ordinarily sale by sample brings into existence implied terms that include: Goods will correspond with the description, that the seller has the right to sell the goods, goods must be of satisfactory quality, goods will correspond with the sample, and that goods will be fit for the purpose. Dough and Bonnie will raise an argument to the effect that the manufacturer’s representative had the authority to sell the bricks hence he was acting on behalf of the brick manufacturer. They will also contend that the bricks were not of satisfactory quality contrary to the representative’s description. They can also state that the bricks that were delivered to them did not correspond with the sample that the representative presented to them hence the bricks were not fit for the purpose, despite informing the representative of the intended purpose of the bricks.

Arguments by the Manufacturer The manufacturer is likely to raise various issues key among them being that the alleged manufacturer’s representative had no authority to sell. In this regard, the manufacturer could argue that the issue of misrepresentation does not arise. The manufacturer could also argue that the bricks were in good condition and were fit for the purpose and that it is not the bricks that were faulty but the installation. Hence poor installation of the bricks caused the bricks to blister and flake. The manufacturer could also argue that the bricks were up to standard and in good condition but that the freezing and thawing temperatures were exceptional hence the manufacturer is not to blame.

Decision The manufacturer is liable for the loss of Dough and Bonnie. This is because the buyers relied on the advice of the manufacturer’s representative believing that he was competent enough to render an informed counsel. As such, the manufacturer is vicariously liable for the actions of its representative.

Paper For Above instruction

In the complex landscape of contractual law, disputes often arise from misrepresentations and the passing of property rights. The case of Dough and Bonnie versus a brick manufacturer exemplifies the intricacies of agency authority, implied terms in sales by sample, and the liabilities arising from misrepresentation. This paper critically examines the arguments presented by both parties, evaluates the legal principles applicable, and concludes with an assessment of liability and the legal remedies available.

Introduction

Contractual transactions involving the sale of goods are foundational to commercial law. The principles governing these transactions aim to protect consumers while balancing the rights of sellers. In cases where misrepresentations or faulty goods are involved, courts analyze the facts against established legal standards such as the Sale of Goods Act, agency law, and principles of implied warranties. The dispute between Dough and Bonnie and the brick manufacturer provides an illustrative example of these legal concepts in action.

Arguments by Dough and Bonnie

Dough and Bonnie assert that the manufacturer's sales representative acted as an agent with actual authority to bind the manufacturer. This is critical because it establishes the seller’s liability for the actions or representations made by the agent. They contend that the representative demonstrated a sample of bricks and recommended a specific type, creating an implied condition that the goods would correspond with the sample, be of satisfactory quality, and fit for their intended purpose.

The law of sale by sample implies several terms, including: the goods will match the description and sample; the seller has the right to sell the goods; the goods are of satisfactory quality; and the goods are fit for their purpose. Dough and Bonnie’s reliance on the representative's advice is justified under these principles, especially if the representation was part of the sale by sample doctrine. As such, they argue that the delivered bricks did not correspond with the sample, were not of satisfactory quality, and were unfit for purpose, resulting in damages or loss.

Their case is further strengthened if the expert advice was given in the course of a business transaction and if the representative had apparent authority, which the manufacturer is bound to recognize. This adherence to the doctrine emphasizes the importance of agency authority and implied terms in establishing liability.

Arguments by the Manufacturer

The manufacturer’s defense centers around the assertion that the sales representative lacked actual authority to bind the manufacturer. If proven, this diminishes the manufacturer’s liability, as the agent’s actions would not be regarded as binding the principal. The manufacturer might also argue that the bricks supplied were of the appropriate standard, in good condition, and fit for their intended purpose, notwithstanding the alleged defects.

Furthermore, the manufacturer could attribute any damages or defective installation to external factors such as extreme weather conditions—freezing and thawing temperatures—that could cause the bricks to blister or flake independent of their quality. This defense challenges the assertion that the bricks were inherently faulty, suggesting instead that misuse or environmental factors are responsible.

This argument hinges on establishing the conditions under which risk and ownership pass, and whether the defect was due to the product’s inherent quality or external factors. The manufacturer might invoke technical reports or expert opinions indicating that the bricks meet industry standards and that their performance is affected by factors beyond their control.

Legal Analysis and Conclusion

The crux of the case lies in determining whether the sales representative possessed authority, whether the sale was conducted as a sale by sample, and whether the goods were of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. Under the Sale of Goods Act, implied terms automatically form part of a sale by sample, and these are legally binding unless explicitly excluded.

The doctrine of vicarious liability holds that employers are liable for the acts of their employees performed within the scope of employment. Since the representative was acting during his employment, the manufacturer bears responsibility for his representations, provided the agent had apparent authority.

Based on the facts, it appears that Dough and Bonnie reasonably relied on the advice and the sample presented, which aligns with the legal standards of sale by sample. Given the inability of the manufacturer to disprove authority or demonstrate that the bricks were fit and proper, liability for misrepresentation and breach of implied terms attaches to the manufacturer. They are thus liable for the damages suffered by Dough and Bonnie.

Remedies available could include damages for breach of contract, rescission of the sale, or specific performance. Courts may also award damages to compensate for the costs of replacing or re-installing the faulty bricks. This case underscores the importance of clear agency authority and the significance of implied warranties in consumer transactions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Dough and Bonnie’s claim that the manufacturer’s representative acted with authority and that the sale constituted a sale by sample in which the goods failed to meet implied standards is substantiated by legal principles. The manufacturer’s liability, therefore, is supported by the doctrine of agency and implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act. The case exemplifies the need for manufacturers and sellers to ensure proper authorization, accurate representations, and adherence to contractual standards to prevent liability and consumer disputes in sales transactions.

References

• Beale, H. (2019). Chitty on Contracts (32nd ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co (1893) 1 QB 256.
• Furmston, M. (2017). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (17th ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Halsbury's Laws of England. (2018). Contracts, Vol. 25. LexisNexis.
• McKendrick, E. (2021). Contract Law (9th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
• Meadowcroft, M., & Goudkamp, J. (2014). Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (19th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
• Ridley, R. (2018). Sale of Goods and Supply of Goods to Consumers. Routledge.
• Schwartz, M. (2020). Principles of Contract Law. Routledge.
• Summers, R. (2019). The Law of Contracts. Cambridge University Press.
• Treitel, G. H. (2015). The Law of Contract (14th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.