Business Laws

Coeurdepirate

Does anybody have a good summary on the Consumer Protection Act, 2007 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980?
Thanks!

I know they're easy, but it's just so much effort having to learn so many pages, when they could be easily broken down. I've a test on them tomorrow and I'm so not bothered learning loads of stuff.

unknown13

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Does anybody have a good summary on the Consumer Protection Act, 2007 and the Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980?
Thanks!

Are you serious? That is by far the easiest act in the whole LC business course

Coeurdepirate

unknown13 wrote: »

Are you serious? That is by far the easiest act in the whole LC business course

I know they're really easy, but I've a test on those two and the Law of Contract tomorrow, and I'm so not arsed

TimeToShine

Are you having a fúcking laugh, I would have come in my pants if I'd seen either of them come up on my Business paper, pure common sense...

Namlub

TimeToShine wrote: »

Are you having a fúcking laugh, I would have come in my pants if I'd seen either of them come up on my Business paper, pure common sense...

Yeah sure, just wing it. It's not like business has a rigid marking scheme or anything...

Grindylow

Sale of goods and supply of services act:

It states that:
-Goods must be of merchantable quality [ie: they must be of good quality, relative to the price of the good, which means that that the higher the price that is paid, the better quality the good should be.]
-Goods must be fit for the purpose intended [ie: If you buy a washing machine, it must spin properly so that the clothes will wash.]
-The good must correspond to the sample [ie: If you order a pair of curtains in blue, they must be delivered to you in blue, and not any other colour.]
-The good must be as described [ie: If you buy a camera which on the packaging says it has flash, but when you open it, it doesn't have flash, you can bring the camera back because the good was not as described.]

If a case arises where you feel that a good doesn't meet any of these, you can bring the good back and seek a refund, a repair or a replacement and they can't legally not resolve the issue. If it comes to it, the retailer can be brought to the small claims court where claims can be made up to €2000 and it only costs €15.

^-- There's one of them anyway. Might do the other later! :P

Coeurdepirate

Noel2k9 wrote: »

Sale of goods and supply of services act:

It states that:
-Goods must be of merchantable quality [ie: they must be of good quality, relative to the price of the good, which means that that the higher the price that is paid, the better quality the good should be.]
-Goods must be fit for the purpose intended [ie: If you buy a washing machine, it must spin properly so that the clothes will wash.]
-The good must correspond to the sample [ie: If you order a pair of curtains in blue, they must be delivered to you in blue, and not any other colour.]
-The good must be as described [ie: If you buy a camera which on the packaging says it has flash, but when you open it, it doesn't have flash, you can bring the camera back because the good was not as described.]

If a case arises where you feel that a good doesn't meet any of these, you can bring the good back and seek a refund, a repair or a replacement and they can't legally not resolve the issue. If it comes to it, the retailer can be brought to the small claims court where claims can be made up to €2000 and it only costs €15.

^-- There's one of them anyway. Might do the other later! :P

THANK YOU, finally someone who's not a douche

TimeToShine

Namlub wrote: »

Yeah sure, just wing it. It's not like business has a rigid marking scheme or anything...

You're having a fúcking laugh. Please tell me that wasn't sarcasm? Unless the 2010 LC marking scheme had a totally different lay out then the marking schemes were just a huge chunk of text which I assure you none of the correctors followed rigidly.

Grindylow

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

THANK YOU, finally someone who's not a douche

No problem!
Just make sure you state these bits perfectly:

- Goods must be of merchantable quality
- Goods must be fit for the purpose intended
- Goods must be as described
- Goods must correspond to sample

If you're getting a test on it, it'll probably be an exam question giving an example of someone buying something and a fault occurring to it. If so, just quote them, and relate it to the text. So if it's about someone buying a shoe and the heel breaks just say something like:

"Goods must be of merchantable quality, and the shoes which Kate bought were not of merchantable quality because the heel of the shoe broke after one week."

Coeurdepirate

Noel2k9 wrote: »

No problem!
Just make sure you state these bits perfectly:

- Goods must be of merchantable quality
- Goods must be fit for the purpose intended
- Goods must be as described
- Goods must correspond to sample

If you're getting a test on it, it'll probably be an exam question giving an example of someone buying something and a fault occurring to it. If so, just quote them, and relate it to the text. So if it's about someone buying a shoe and the heel breaks just say something like:

"Goods must be of merchantable quality, and the shoes which Kate bought were not of merchantable quality because the heel of the shoe broke after one week."

Thanks a lot Nevermind the Consumer Protection Act one btw, I did it myself :P

Namlub

TimeToShine wrote: »

You're having a fúcking laugh. Please tell me that wasn't sarcasm? Unless the 2010 LC marking scheme had a totally different lay out then the marking schemes were just a huge chunk of text which I assure you none of the correctors followed rigidly.

No, I am seriously suggesting that it's probably better that someone wanting to do well in the exam actually knows
their stuff rather than just banking on the corrector not doing their job properly... Wild, I know.