Case Study on Liquor Shop of Ben

Question: Case study on liquor shop of Ben. Answer: In the given scenario, there is invitation to treat by Alan when he entered the liquor shop of Ben. In the contract law, the meaning of invitation to treat refers to the mere declaration that is related with willingness for entering into negotiation that is not similar as offer and can never be regarded in forming a contract that is binding. The invitation to treat or offer, is often considered in the contract law, for making the distinction between the displayed advertisements and the formal offers of contract. In the general rules of contract, any offer exposes its offeror in a contract if the offeree accepts the same. However, it is not the same in the case of invitation to treat or offer. The primary contract rule depicts that any offer must be unequivocal, clear and direct to any other party to the contract. Hence, for this purpose the catalogues, advertisements or the store flyers are not regarded as offers. The law calls the invitation to treat as essentially the invitations that are to the public in general to make the any offer to any particular item. Here lie certain exceptions. The advertisements that demarcate the rates of trains are to be held as an offer that is valid (McKendrick, 2014). Hence, it can be said that an invitation to treat is an announcement that is made merely to another person, that any person is ready to entertain any offer for any particular goods or service. In the case study that is provided, there is invitation to treat on the part of Alan when started looking at the bottles of vodka upon entering the liquor shop of Ben. In the case of Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemicals (1952), it was held that the offer would be rendered to any customer once the customer insists to buy. In the given case study, it is noted that Ben made the offer to Alan after getting the insisting from him to make the purchase of Russian vodka. In the given case, the offeror Ben, made the counter offer to Alan, who insisted for purchasing the vodka that is Russian. In this case, it evident that the counter offer by Ben nullifies the invitation to treat. On the basis of the insistence of Alan to make the purchase of Russian vodka, Ben made the offer and Alan as the offeree, made the acceptance of that offer. The case of Bannerman v White in 1861, made the stipulation of the legal principle that if there is any term that is communicated to the offeror by the offeree before the making of the contract, then such term should be binding on the offeror. Hence, from the discussion of these facts, it is evident that there is an offer by Ben and Alan accepts the same by making the purchase of the three bottles of the preferred drink. Consideration is the reward that is given to the party who contracts with another. Consideration is the price that is paid by any of the parties who contracts with one another in exchange of an obligation to the contract. A contract without consideration is void. Consideration may be given in kind or cash. However, the most reliable type of consideration is the one that is given in cash. For example, A agreed to buy Bs computer for 5000 dollars. The consideration here is 5000 dollars. Without the payment of this consideration the contract shall be deemed as void. The price that was fixed between Alan and Ben was the consideration that Alan had to pay to Ben in exchange of a promise. Legal Capacity for a contract to obtain the status of being enforceable and legally binding, it is important for the parties to the contract to give it the status of legal enforceability. This may happen only when the parties to the contract are lawfully capable of forming a contract with one another. If the parties to the contract do not have the capacity to contract with one another, then the contract may become voidable at the choice of the parties to the contract. For example, if the contract is with the minor then the contract may be declared as voidable with the choice of the minor. If the minor does not have the capability of understanding the implications of the contract the contract may be declared as void (Puil Weele, 2014). Alan and Ben had the legal capacity of entering into a contract with each other. Both were major in age and both of them were of sound mind. From the discussion of the above facts it is evident that there exists a contract between Ben and Alan that both valid and enforceable in the court of law. The Sales of Goods Act of Singapore deals with the sale and purchase of goods and the rights and liabilities of the seller and the buyer. As per the consumer law of Singapore, when exchange takes place for some price or value in which the seller or the vendor transfers his rights to the buyer then sale or purchase of the goods has taken place. Such transactions are covered and rules by the regulations consisting in the Sales of Goods Act, Singapore (Amin, 2013). The Sales of Goods Act contain a detailed list of the transactions that are covered within the scope of this Act. The first part of the Act deals with the meaning of the word as used in the Act. Part 1 (h) of the Sales of Goods Act describes the word goods. As per the explanation of this section, goods may means timber, stocks or crops (Ayres, 2012). The Sales of Good Act is known for the warranties that it contains to protect the buyer against the seller. The interests of the seller are protected against the acts of the seller with the help of this Act. The provisions in the Sales of Goods Act contain many warranties as per which protection is provided to the buyers from their deceptive actions. This is contained in Part 1 of the Sales of Goods Act (Cartwright, 2016). Section 15 of the Sales of Goods Act provides protection to the buyer by way of implication of implied warranties of this section against the seller. Implied warranties provide protection to the buyer from deceitful behavior of the seller. In the case of Griffiths v. Peter Conway Ltd, the Court held that when the buyer informs the seller explicitly about his needs and while following the instructions of the buyer if the seller fails to act reasonably then there is no breach of sections 14 and 15 of the Sales of Goods Act. In the court of Grant v. Australian Knittin g Mills ltd, the Court held that there was breach of section 14 even though the buyer did not expressly state the purpose of buying the goods. According to section 15 of the Act, when the seller has provided a particular description of the goods and if the goods does not match with the description provided then the buyer may file a suit against the seller for breach of his duty. Additionally, section 16 of the Act imposes warranty on the seller that it should match with the description of the goods (McKendrick, 2014). If the given rules are applied to the scenario, wherein Alan was the buyer and Ben was the seller. Alan already stated that he wanted to purchase a bottle of vodka that is distilled in Russia. Ben assured Alan that the drink that he is providing him with is from Russia. Consequently, he provided him with illicit drinks as a result of which Alans friend suffered from diarrhea. Hence, Alan may file suit against Ben for violation of sections 15 and 16 of the Sales of Goods Act. By including an exclusion clause in the contract, parties to the contract often restrict or avoid their liability that arises out of their contract. Exclusion clause means a clause that is introduced in the agreement or contract that avoids or restricts the liabilities of the parties to the contract. The liability is imposed only on the happening of any event, situation or circumstances. Hence, the presence of exclusion protects or restricts the liability of the seller (Loi Low, 2014). Exclusionary clauses that restrict the liability of the other person are mostly considered as illegal and opposed to public policy. In other countries, there are specific laws that deal with the application of exclusionary clauses. In most countries, exclusionary clauses are regarded as void and illegal. In Singapore, The Unfair Contract Terms Act helps in the regulation of contracts that contains exclusionary clauses. The Unfair Contract Terms Act is a body of law that is formulated to protect the ri ghts of the consumers that is often prejudiced by the weaker bargaining capacity of the consumers (Cartwright, 2016). Section 5 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, states that products that are used by consumers for private consumption such as beverages shall be covered under this Act. In such cases, the manufacturer cannot rely on the term or that is printed on the receipt to exclude himself from liability that arises from such contract. Hence, the main aim of formulation of the Unfair Contract Terms Act was to restrict the sellers from application of the exclusion clauses to the contract (McKendrick, 2014). In this case, Ben issued a receipt to Alan that excluded him from the liability of any injury that may arise due to the consumption or use of the sold products. Receipt is not contract, it is just an acknowledgement. A receipt that is issued by the seller to the purchaser cannot be treated as an obligation nor does it lead to formation of contract. In the case of L Estrange v. Gr aucob, the plaintiff purchased a cigarette from the defendant and signed a small receipt that contained that the seller shall not be liable for any injury arising from the consumption of cigarette. The Court held in this case that the defendant cannot protect himself by including such clause in the receipt. The Unfair Contract Terms Act is applicable in all kind of contracts and it extends to the entire Singapore. Section 3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act states the liability that arises from the contract and the relationship between the contracting parties to the contract. However, the section is applicable only in those situations any one of the contracting parties to the contract relies on the written terms or conditions of the contract (Amin, 2013). Hence, section 3 of the Act restricts any one of the parties to the contract to exclude or limit his liability regarding the breach of his or her contractual duties. Courts take into consideration the reasonableness of the exclusion clause, if the Court deems fit that the exclusion clause is reasonable then the plaintiff may not seek protection but if the exclusion clause is not reasonable then the Court may restrict the defendant from applying the exclusion clause to the contract (Hillman, 2012). This largely depends on the circumstanc es of a given case. In the given case scenario also, the seller, Ben included an exclusionary clause to the receipt which restricted him from the liability of providing protection to Alan. Such exclusion clause cannot be imposed on Alan and Ben cannot protect himself by applying this exclusion clause. The clause that was imposed by Ben to Alan shall not be considered as reasonable in the eyes of law as this limits the scope of its applicability. In the case study that is provided, Ben and Alan enter into a sale of contract with each other wherein Ben was the seller and Alan was the buyer. As mentioned earlier, a valid contract existed between Alan and Ben as they fulfilled all the requirements of a valid contract. Ben gave assurance to Alan that the vodka which he wanted to buy matched the requirements of Alan. However, Alans friends fall sick after consuming the same drink. It was later found that the drink which they bought from Ben was illicit. Alans friends get cured of diarrhea. Based on the facts, the issue that arises here is whether Alans friends can claim any issue against Ben or not? The initial answer to this question is No as there was lack of existence of valid contract between Ben and Alans friends. However, Alans friends can file a suit against Ben for breach of duty of care or may bring an action of negligence against him. Ben may be held liable for being negligent for selling bootleg drinks. Negligence means when a person breaches his or her duty of care which he owes to the plaintiff. Under ordinary circumstances a person is expected to utilize his sense of care and duty, failure to do the same may make the person liable for negligent action (Van Dam, 2013). To make a person liable for negligence, the following elements needs to be fulfilled, firstly, breach of duty of care. This means that the defendant owed duty of care to the plaintiff and the defendant failed to exercise that duty. The doctrine of proximity is also applicable in negligent cases; this means that the damage that is caused and the result of the damages should have close relation to one another (Deakin et al., 2012). In this case, Ben failed to exercise his duty of care as a shopkeeper. Ben should have acted reasonably and he should have made sure that the vodka drinks are not illicit in nature. The causation rule means that the plaintiff has to show that act of the defendant caused injury to the plaintiff. In this ca se, Alans friends who are not feeling well can also prove this point against Ben. Hence, Ben may be held liable for negligent action. According to the doctrine of privity, a person who is not a party to the contract cannot enforce the terms of the contract. However, the law of Singapore allows the third party to benefit from the terms of the contract in special circumstances. This doctrine is applicable to arbitration clauses as part of the contract (Liang Kee, 2014). In this case, Alans friends can apply the doctrine of privity and make Ben liable for breach of duty of care as a shopkeeper. Section 2 of the UCTA deals with negligent liability, this section prohibits a person from using a term of the contract to exclude himself from liability that has taken place due to the negligent action of the other person (Chan Lee, 2016). Ben can be held liable under Section 2 of the UCTA. References: Amin, N. (2013). Protecting consumers against unfair contract terms in Malaysia: the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act 2010.Malayan Law Journal,1, 1-11. Ayres, I. (2012).Studies in Contract Law. Foundation Press. Cartwright, J. (2016).Contract law: An introduction to the English law of contract for the civil lawyer. Bloomsbury Publishing. Chan, G. K. Y., Lee, P. W. (2016). The Law of Torts in Singapore. Deakin, S. F., Johnston, A., Markesinis, B. S. (2012).Markesinis and Deakin's tort law. Oxford University Press. Hillman, R. A. (2012).The richness of contract law: An analysis and critique of contemporary theories of contract law(Vol. 28). Springer Science Business Media. Liang, J. S. W., Low Kee, Y. (2014). Recognising lost chances in tort law.Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, (Jul 2014), 98. Loi, K. C., Low, K. F. (2014). Non-reliance clauses and the unfair contract terms act: welcome clarity from Singapore.Journal of business law, (2), 155-160. McKendrick, E. (2014).Contract law: text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press (UK). Puil, J. V. D., Weele, A. V. (2014). Contract Law and Tort Law. InInternational Contracting: Contract Management in Complex Construction Projects(pp. 285-292). Van Dam, C. (2013).European tort law. OUP Oxford.