Help with contract law...

saviourgirl

Hello,

Could anybody help me with this, I'm doing a marketing thesis and law isnt my strong point.
A few pointers would be good.

Thanks
Sarah

Scenario:

Rock Bottom is a recording studio whose equipment is becoming quite dated. New recording desks and microphones are urgently needed.

Rock Bottom’s managers have asked both Digital Music Ltd. and Microtune Teo. to provide them with their price list. As the studio was planning to purchase a lot of equipment a good discount could be anticipated.

Digital Music’s prices for the items required were given by phone on the 10th of March. During the conversation, Rock Bottom’s manager mentioned that the mics would be used for Pop/Rock style of music. The salesman at Digital Music then told him: “these mics are the model used by U2 on their last album”.

Microtune’s order form was received on the 19th of March, with a letter mentioning that there were only a few remaining desks left at that discounted price and that they were likely to go very quickly.

On the 15th of March an order for twenty desks and thirty microphones was sent to Digital Music Ltd, together with a cheque for the full amount. The goods were sent via postal services on the 20th, accompanied by a delivery note that contained a list of terms and conditions, some of which excluded Digital Music Ltd from liability for “any loss or damage caused by any failure of the equipment”. Delivery took place on the 23d of the same month.

However after Microtune’s very competitive quote, Rock Bottom sent a letter to Digital Music, dated 19th of March, asking them to disregard the order and not to lodge the cheque. This letter reached the company on the 21st of March.

On the 19th of March Rock Bottom also emailed Microtune, who were unavailable on the phone, asking them to make sure to keep twenty desks and thirty mics for the studio. An answer was immediately sent by email but due to a network failure, the message was only read on the 25th. It stated: “we are delighted to ship to you the requested items, please lodge the money for the full amount to our bank account, the details of which are set out below”…


1)To whom is Rock Bottom contractually bound?

2)Assuming that Rock Bottom is using Digital Music’s equipment, some of the items are clearly faulty and cannot be used to their full potential. The seller is refusing any refund, reminding the studio of their terms and conditions. Has Rock Bottom got any possible redress?

3)It is later established that the microphones that do work have never actually been used by any known band. Is there any legal route open to Rock Bottom?

4)Does the development of electronic commerce introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty into the Law on the formation of contracts?

Time Magazine

saviourgirl wrote:

Hello,

Could anybody help me with this, I'm doing a marketing thesis and law isnt my strong point.
A few pointers would be good.

Thanks
Sarah

This is a marketing question? Mad, sounds like a LA1240 to me. You might want to look up The Law of Contract (2003) by G.H. Treitel. It's upstairs in the Berkeley Library and there are six in the counter-reserve. It has a good section on the formation of contracts and the problems with postage etc.

I don't stoop so low as to study in the vice-deanery of Law and Pedantry Studies, so this is going by what I can remember of the aforementioned Law course, but I'm willing to bet xeducat will give me at least a strong II.2 for my efforts:

1)To whom is Rock Bottom contractually bound?

I can't remember the laws on emails/letters. Check Treitel. Almost certainly to Digital Music as the goods were shipped prior to notification of rejection of offer (or, more accurately, withdrawal of acceptance) was received.

2)Assuming that Rock Bottom is using Digital Music’s equipment, some of the items are clearly faulty and cannot be used to their full potential. The seller is refusing any refund, reminding the studio of their terms and conditions. Has Rock Bottom got any possible redress?

Under the s.10 (if I remember correctly) of the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act (1980), goods must be of "merchantable quality." Failure to supply goods of merchantable quality, say of the quality U2 use, enforces the right of a replacement, repair or refund to the consumer.

3)It is later established that the microphones that do work have never actually been used by any known band. Is there any legal route open to Rock Bottom?

Goods must match those advertised. This is also under the Sale of Goods.. Act. Same entitlements apply.

4)Does the development of electronic commerce introduce an unacceptable level of uncertainty into the Law on the formation of contracts?

You have to read Treitel and make your own mind up on that.

saviourgirl

Thanks Ibid I'll try and get stuck into it now.

That is the exact same question that came up in LA1240, except no email involved.. mad!

saviourgirl

Can you remember what you wrote for it?:D
And do you still have the paper you wrote?