The paper "Asad’ s Potential Liability to Poppy " is a wonderful example of a Business Assignment. Asad has a painting displayed in the gallery window. The customer wants to buy this painting even though Asad is not selling. Asad is not selling the painting and the painting is not for sale. Therefore, Asad does not have a legal responsibility to sell the painting to the customer even though Poppy insists that the product is on the display. Poppy is suing Asad for failing to sell her the goods on display. Law Under English Law, traders should invite their customers in order to treat them.
However, the law says that an invitation to treat does not constitute an offer. An invitation to treat does not constitution a formation of the contract. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 recognizes contract formation when the seller and buyer have reached an agreement of some form to exchange the products with any form of agreeable payment. Applicability In the context of Asad and Poppy, Asad does not have a legal liability to sell the painting to Poppy. First, goods on display do not constitute a legally binding contract.
Even though the English Law recognizes that goods on display constitute an invitation to treat, an invitation to treat does not constitute a legally binding contract between the buyer and the seller. Drawing from the case scenario, a seller who intends to sell a product must demonstrate an invitation to treat. Invitation to treat constitutes advertisement or indicating price on advertised product. In this case, Asad may have displayed the paintings, but that does not constitute an advertisement and there was no pricing hence Poppy does not have ground to claim that Asad had any legal obligation to sell the paintings to him. Conclusion Asad has no legal obligation to sell the painting to Poppy because goods on display do not constitute a legally binding contract between the buyer and the seller.
Also, the painting on display without price does not constitute an invitation to buy. Lovely Lighting Ltd’ s liability to Asad Issue In this case, Lovely Lighting Limited has a legal responsibility to remedy Asad for the damages incurred from the goods they supplied.
Asad is entitled to remedy because Lovely Lighting Limited breached the contract by supplying goods or products that do not meet acceptable standards. The goods that Lovely Lighting Ltd sold to Asad were not of satisfactory quality. The goods caused further damages to Asad’ s business. Law This case between Asad v Lovely Lighting Ltd can be reviewed using the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This consumer law points out that traders or seller will breach the seller/trader contract if the goods or product they supply is not of satisfactory quality regardless of the terms of seller/buyer contracts.
In this case, Lovely Lighting Ltd supplied to Asad a custom sign that does not meet the quality standards. This sign had a spelling mistake and was not useful. Under this Act, the consumer is entitled to some expectations. Asad expects that goods must be of satisfactory quality, they must be of a particular purpose, they must be what the consumer expects. Unfortunately, in this case, Lovely Lighting Ltd supplied to Asad a product, which the consumer did not expect hence this company is liable to pay remedies and damages to Asad.
In addition to supplying poor quality goods to Asad, Lovely Lighting Ltd is responsible for goods supplied and that do not meet the requirements under the Consumer Rights Act as well as other requirements that set out in the contract. The CRA also recognizes “ Goods: If Things Go Wrong” where traders should take full liability if the goods they supply go wrong even after delivery.
Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd  All ER (D) 2436
Barrett v MOD  1 WLR 1217
Consumer Protection Act 1987
Donoghue v Stevenson  UKHL100,  AC 562
Gregg v Scott  UKHL 2,  EWCA Civ 1471
Harvey v Facey  UKPC 1,  AC 552
Howells, G. G., & Weatherill, S. (2005). Consumer protection law. Gower Publishing, Ltd. 2005. 16-20
Foster v Biosil  59 BMLR 178
Sale of Goods Act 1979
Richardson v LRC Products Ltd (2000) 59 BMLR 185
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act of 1945
Revill v Newbery  EWCA,  Civ 10.
Pitts v Hunt  3 All ER 344
Mothersole, B., & Ridley, A. A-level Law in Action. Cengage Learning EMEA. 1999. 1-9
Williams, Glanville L. "The Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act, 1945." The Modern Law Review 9, no. 2 (1946): 105-136.