The Potential Business Partnership - Case Study Example

BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT by Student's Name Course Code and Name Professor’s Name University Name City, State Date of Submission Business Law Assignment Case 1 A business contract in essence is an agreement that generally involves two or more parties in a certain transaction. This means the possibility of disagreements is always high. This has prompted stakeholders to develop rules of engagement. In this type of setting it requires all parties to agree on writing the pre determined rules before they can engage in business endeavor. The statute requires that all parties fully understand logistics of the whole activity so that they can make a sober decision in terms of participating in the business. One of the most important aspect of any business contract is the fully disclose of discrete information by all parties. This means the stakeholders should make sure all the relevant information pertaining the transaction is available for scrutiny by the potential business partnership (Macintyre 2007). Case 1 Issue In the case of Ji vs the bank, the bank fails to disclose all the information concerning the loan he was borrowing. They also took advantage of Mr. Ji due to his naivety in terms of understanding the full terms of the contract. This coupled by the fact that the management did not give Mr. Ji enough time to consult in order to fully understand the consequences if he defaulted payments. This action is further aggravated by the act of the manager in terms of his conduct when convincing Ji to sign the contract. He hurries him to sign the contract so that he could finish this transaction to fulfill his job obligations before living for personal goals. The manager was simply living for a holiday and he felt that if Ji took time to consult it would interfere with his schedule. In this type of scenario Ji ended up signing a loan contract that he did not fully understand due to circumstances like lack of proper understand of English the language that was used to transact. Rule The court decided that if Ji knew the full consequences of the loan maybe he could have made different decisions concerning the loan. This means the bank had no jurisdiction to take Ji’s house in order to compensate their loss. Analysis His education background was also narrow and the implication was that he could not fully grasp the concept of the contract or the consequences of default (Keenan & Riches 2007). The bank therefore failed in its obligation of disclosing all the information hence Mr. Ji is entitled to seek legal redress on the matter. This is simply because the bank broke the rules of contract that state there should be complete disclosing of information. Conclusion Due to their failure to disclose information Mr. Ji can correctly claim it impaired him in terms of making sound decision. This means the contract was set in away to favor the bank by giving them a better barging power which Ji did not have. He could therefore argue if he knew the full consequences of the loan maybe he could have made different decisions concerning the loan. This means the bank had no jurisdiction to take Ji house in order to compensate their loss. On the other, Ji had a right to sue the bank for taking advantage of his ignorance to convince him to sign a contract he did not really understand. The manager is also guilty for office negligence as he pushed the contract through for the sake of going for a holiday in time. Case Two Issue The issue of Mr. Lu in this case falls under the contract of sale of goods act. In this scenario Mr Lu purchased a certain type of carpet and the supply simply brought a low quality. The implication was that the carpet did not live up to his expectations due to its poor quality. The supply therefore short changed Mr. Lu in this aspect. Rule The law involving supply and a consumer stipulates that both parties involved must honor their obligation in the contract. This means the consumer must pay the agreed amount for the goods he is being supplied at the agreed time. On the other hand the supply must avail goods in time (Macintyre 2007). The goods must meet certain conditions such as, being legitimate, be of the right quality and quantity. If the above conditions are not met then there is usually a bleach of contract. The other parties whose rights have been violated are entitled to protest. The rights violated could range from direct and indirect costs that were incurred by Mr. Lu due to supplier action of supplying low quality carpet. Analysis This means Mr. Lu has a legal right to sue his supply for supplying him a carpet that did not meet the terms they had agreed on. The supply simply provided him with a cheaper carpet of law quality yet he had paid for a high quality carpet. This means the supply simply robbed Mr. Lu his money in that sense. He therefore can seek a legal address to get refund of his money because he was supplied with was not what he had not purchased. He could also ask for compensation in terms of psychological loss and other losses his business may have suffered. For example, he could claim that he had to close his business for a couple of days in order to facilities’ repairs which could have been avoided if the supply honored the first contract as agreed (Keenan & Riches 2007). Conclusion The company also resulted in to unscrupulous business practices when they were trying to convince him to buy the carpet. This is manifested by the fact that the salesman of the carpet company shows him a sample of high quality carpet in order to manipulate him to purchase their carpet shows another bleach of the contract. The law is very clear supplies should endeavor to honor their contracts by making sure they fulfill their obligation in terms of supply goods which are acceptable to their clients. The fact that Mr. Lu agreed to enter into a contract with a company means they had convinced him of their ability to supply a high quality carpet. He can therefore claim that if he knew they would supply that kind of carpet he could have not purchased it in the first place. This means the company was guilty of manipulation in order to win a contract and also of supplying law quality carpet. Reference List Keenan, D. J., & Riches, S. (2007). Business law. Harlow, Pearson Longman. Macintyre, E. (2007). Business law. Harlow, Longman. Read More