Ken Right to Claim against Eddie-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp

Questions: 1.Does Ken have a claim against Eddie? Why? 2.Advise Eddie whether Jerry was entitled to purchase the helmet for $50 and any claim that he may face. 3.Advise Eddie whether he is required to pay Jane the $200. 4.Advise Eddie whether he has to refund Lisa her money. Answers: 1.It must be noted that for valid contract there must be offer, acceptance, and consideration. If all these elements are present in the contract then such contract is considered as valid contract. it must be noted that there is clear difference between the offer and invitation to treat, and those business which sell their products through advertisement must understand this business. If any person sells goods through advertisement then such person constitutes an offer if such advertisement contains sufficient details and shows intention to be legally bound. This can be seen in case law Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256. In such case, there is no control of person who publishes advertisement that who accepts the offer. In the present case, Ken has right to claim against Eddie for breach of contract because Eddie gives offer through advertisement which is accepted by Ken (NZLII, n.d.). 2.It must be noted that offer is completely different from the invitation to deal. It is not simple to distinguish between the two, and the test of intention is done to determine the difference between two. It is considered whether statement made by party give rise to an agreement or results in further negotiation. This can be understood through case law Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427. In this case, it was argued by the society that sale related to drugs was completed when item was taken out by the customer through shelf and put it in their cart or basket, and when consumer take that item to sale desk then pharmacist cannot state that goods were not sold to the consumer. In this case, judge held that in an ordinary shop goods were displayed by the shopkeeper with intention that consumer itself chooses the goods as per their needs, and contract is not exist till consumer state h is needs and shopkeeper accepts it (ACL, n.d.). In the present case, Jerry is not entitled to purchase the helmet at $50 because there is only invitation to deal and not the offer on part of Eddie. 3.It must be noted for valid contract consideration is considered as most important factor, and as per this consideration must be comes into existence either with or after the promise. For example: when stipulated consideration pre-dates the promise then such consideration is not considered as good consideration. In other words, Past consideration cannot be considered as good consideration. This can be understood through case law Harrington v Taylor, 36 SE 2d 227 (1945). In this case, W was the wife of D and she was assaulted by D on regular basis. W escaped to Ps house for saving herself and D broke the hose of P for assaulting the W again. W knocked down D for the purpose of saving herself with an Axe and decapitates him when P intervened. In this process hand of P was badly mutilated by the axe. However, Somehow D survived and promised P to pay her damages, but after sometime D only pay small amount of damages to P and refused to make further amount. In this case, Court stated that act done by P was voluntarily acted and there was no obligation on D to make any payment to P. In the present case, Eddie is not liable to pay $200 to Jane because act done by Jane was voluntarily act 4.Goods supplied by manufacturer and retailer must be of acceptable quality, and acceptable quality includes: Goods must be fit for all purposes. Goods must be acceptable in appearances. Goods must be safe. Goods must be free from all defects. Goods must be durable. If any major failure is occurred in goods then consumer has following remedies: Consumer has right to rejects the goods and ask for money back. Seek compensation in reduction of value of goods but it must be below the price paid for goods (Consumer Protection, n.d.). In the present case, Lisa can ask for money back because goods are not of acceptable quality References: Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. Ltd [1893] 1 QB 256. Harrington v Taylor, 36 SE 2d 227 (1945). Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots, Court of Appeal [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] EWCA Civ 6; [1953] 1 All ER 482, [1953] 2 WLR 427. NZLII. New Zealand Law Commission. Viewed at: https://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/report/R50/R50-3.html#Heading347. Accessed on 3rd October 2017. Consumer Protection. Consumer guarantees for products. Viewed at: https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/consumer-law-and-your-rights/consumer-guarantees-act/consumer-guarantees-for-products/. Accessed on 3rd October 2017