Legal studies help

tipp86

I have this project for law could anyone give me some advise as to where i should be looking at what acts they come under. Any cases would be fantastic. Im just finding it all very tough been a mature student in college for the first time in years. This project is really getting the better of me. If anyone could think of any cases that are similar it would be fantastic.

1. Mary was shopping online for a bargain a few weeks ago and came across some nice beachwear that she considered to be perfect for her planned summer holiday in Portugal. When the items Mary purchased arrived in the post they were entirely unsatisfactory, as they did not match those described on the website in terms of quality of the materials used. Mary was furious and e-mailed the seller, who was a Spanish online retailer, and threatened to take them to the Small Claims Court if she did not get a refund immediately. They have replied to Mary stating that she bought the goods subject to the company’s standard terms, which she agreed to online, and that these terms conferred exclusive jurisdiction over any disputes with the courts in Barcelona. They attached a copy of the terms and conditions of sale. Mary is furious at the thought that she would have to bring a case in Barcelona, which happens to be the principal place of business of the seller. Advise Mary.

2.Martin recently won a substantial sum of money and decided to purchase a large yacht. As he has little knowledge of boats or sailing he asked Jim (an experienced sailor) to buy a suitable second hand yacht for him in return for a 5% commission on the transaction. Martin specified that the price was not to exceed €25,000. A few days later Jim contacted Martin to say that he had obtained a suitable yacht for €24,500 and that he could acquire a mooring in the marina for another €8,000. Martin instructed Jim to purchase the mooring on his behalf and also to arrange insurance on the yacht. Yesterday Martin returned from a business trip and decided to go to the marina to see his yacht. When he reached the marina he saw no sign of the yacht. It has now transpired that the yacht broke free from its mooring, collided with another much bigger yacht, causing the hull to breach and it sank. To make matters worse Jim had failed to arrange the insurance for the yacht. Martin has now discovered that Jim actually bought the yacht for €20,000 and lied about the purchase price. Even worse, the mooring that he had obtained was one that Jim himself owned, a fact that was never disclosed to Martin. Martin is enraged and is wondering what legal rights he has against Jim.


3.John has been working with Axa Chickens Ltd (a poultry producer) for the past three years and has been bullied by another member of staff since his arrival. He has made three separate complaints about this to his supervisor but the supervisor who is very friendly with the alleged bully has taken no action. About two years ago the other members of staff started taunting John about his sexuality. John suffered a nervous breakdown a year and a half ago and on his return to work he was reassured that the bullying would cease. This did not happen and John suffered a second breakdown six months ago. When he eventually returned to work five of the other employees held him down and anally inserted a compressed air pipe, which are used on the factory line, and turned on the compressed air. This has caused major ruptures to John internally and he may never recover fully from this. Advise John.

johnnyskeleton

That's one crazy exam, comprising fraud, private international law, s4 rape, employers liability for same, personal injuries, breach of contract, sale of goods and I only briefly scanned through it.

I assume it will all be in your lecturers notes if it is a tacked on "law" module to another course, best stick to those notes.

Procrastastudy

Jesus lol - what the hell are you studying! I thought our lecturers where sadistic enough! :P

Avatargh

Jesus Christ.

And its odd in that the "John's ass" question doesn't appear to be about criminal law. So, it would have been just as good to set it about someone punching him in the face, or holding him down and hitting him.

Please tell me you're expected to know criminal law for this? If not....wow.

tipp86

Ya il stick to the notes guys, i may post up my thoughts in the future as i usually tend to leave something out.

No criminal law involved in the study.

At least my confusion is justified ha

tipp86

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Jesus lol - what the hell are you studying! I thought our lecturers where sadistic enough! :P

Business studies

johnnyskeleton

tipp1986 wrote: »

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Jesus lol - what the hell are you studying! I thought our lecturers where sadistic enough! :P

Business studies

Your lecturer probably has an overactive imagination but try to stick to what he has taught so far.

Procrastastudy

tipp1986 wrote: »

Business studies

He's only going to be looking for an overview then. You litterally have a semesters worth of a law degree to cover off all those topics in detail.

tipp86

1200 words

littlemac1980

Just stick to the Core Issues and develop your answer from there.

I see Question 1, as relating to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, and the and the EC Distance Selling Regulations.

Question 2 focuses on Agencies and Breach of Fiduciary Duties.

The Core issue in Question 3 is Vicarious Liability.

Strawberry Fields

Funny cos I see question 1 as about the defective products act,
2 about negligence and breach of contract
3 about employers liability, vicarious liability and negligently inflicted psychological damage.

What a question.

littlemac1980

godeas16 wrote: »

Funny cos I see question 1 as about the defective products act,
2 about negligence and breach of contract
3 about employers liability, vicarious liability and negligently inflicted psychological damage.

What a question.

No offence, but there is no possibility of the Defect Products applying in Question 1.

As to Question 2, those issues could of course be discussed, but I feel the the question intends to focus a discussion on Agency.

Regarding Question 3, you are entirely correct that the relevant issue is in fact employer's liability, and the application of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work act 2005. the Psycho Damage could and should be discussed too.

purpleglory

I have to agree with the issues raised by littlemac here. While the points noted by go deas may be applicable I think you are reading into the facts of the question a bit too much. For example there is no mention of psychological damage in question 3 or negligence in question 2.

Strawberry Fields

What's a nervous breakdown? If not psychological damage? How does a boat leave it's mooring and sink without an inference of negligence. Yeah you're right on dp act. Anyway I don't want an annonymous online argument. That's just my view.

tipp86

Im pretty sure Case 3 is is more or less an actual case with the air pipe il post it when i find it.

I should mention there is a 4th case ha

Il wait a while before posting it.

NoQuarter

Case 3 may be the funniest thing I have ever read!

blueythebear

tipp1986 wrote: »

Im pretty sure Case 3 is is more or less an actual case with the air pipe il post it when i find it.

I should mention there is a 4th case ha

Il wait a while before posting it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/workers-face-court-over-attack-on-colleague-520178.html

This is the air hose case. If you didn't know it was real you probably wouldn't believe it happened. I'm not sure of the outcome of the criminal law proceedings or if there was any civil case taken, but I would have thought that there was. Further googling might help...

NoQuarter

blueythebear wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/workers-face-court-over-attack-on-colleague-520178.html

This is the air hose case. If you didn't know it was real you probably wouldn't believe it happened. I'm not sure of the outcome of the criminal law proceedings or if there was any civil case taken, but I would have thought that there was. Further googling might help...

No results on courts.ie, westlaw or justis. Might have been done in the D.C on consent. Somehow.

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Case 3 may be the funniest thing I have ever read!

Sadistic so and so!

I'll put it up here (ooh matron) so I'm not further derailing this thread but that seems to be our Tort Lecturers favourite case as well! There's something unsetteling having a woman from west Belfast tell you about S&M!

NoQuarter

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Sadistic so and so!

Always did enjoy R v. Brown.

blueythebear

NoQuarter wrote: »

No results on courts.ie, westlaw or justis. Might have been done in the D.C on consent. Somehow.

Criminal case result is here

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/trio-jailed-for-18-months-after-air-hose-prank-355097.html


I can't imagine that he would not have taken a civil case but I imagine that this settled out of court...

tipp86

Thanks guys il investigate a little further as time goes on.

tipp86

I seem to be ok for the most part of Q1 i still havent figured out the jurisdiction element. I have not found any clear knowledge of where the court case should take place if a hearing is needed.

I get the impression it can happen in Ireland but really have no concrete proof.

NoQuarter

As far as I'm aware jurisdiction relies on either where the contract is formed or where the defendant resides or has their place of business. Combine that with the fact that she agreed to their terms, I would say its tough luck for mary.

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

As far as I'm aware jurisdiction relies on either where the contract is formed or where the defendant resides or has their place of business. Combine that with the fact that she agreed to their terms, I would say its tough luck for mary.

There are various EU agreements which dictate which jurisdiction a case will be heard - I haven't a clue what they are - I just know they exist :P

You might want to have a look at the E-commerce Act 2000.

It doesn't apply here but you could also look at the postal rule for s**ts and giggles.

tipp86

This is turning into a whole lot of information for 300 words.:eek:

tipp86

Katy fell in love with a Range Rover Evoque at their local dealership Range Motors and wanted it as soon as she saw it. Although Katy really could not afford it, she was advised that Range Motors arranged hire purchase for her through Mexx Finance.

The total hire purchase price was €62,000. Katy agreed and signed the relevant documents for the hire purchase with Mexx Finance. After two months she experienced persistent problems with the car and although Range Motors repaired the problems promptly Katy has lost interest in the car.

Katy also personally ran into financial problems and after she had paid €28,000 she decided that she no longer wanted the car and she visited MABS who advised her to notify Maxx Finance to the effect that she no longer wished to continue with the agreement and wished to avail of her entitlement to terminate the agreement in accordance with section 63 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995.

Acting upon that advice, the Katy wrote to the Mexx Finance a letter dated 21st August 2011. The letter stated as follows:

Date: 21st Aug. 2011.
To whom it may concern,

I wish to terminate the Hire Purchase agreement according to my statutory rights under section 63 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. You can collect the vehicle from my home address. Please advise time and date of collection. Please also forward me a statement with outstanding balance after termination.
Regards, Katy Murphy


Mexx Finance has ignored her letter and believes this is an unlawful termination of the agreement and has sent reminders to her for the missed installments. Katy wrote to advise that she wanted Mexx Finance to take the car and stated that she was prepared to pay €50 per week to bring her total payments up to €31,000 or 50% of the hire purchase price.

The Financial Services Ombudsman has been contacted on the matter by Mexx Finance and the Ombudsman has advised that they agree with Mexx Finance that they do not have to take the car. Advise Katy.

Procrastastudy

Mexx own the car and her contract of sale is with them. They haven't provided her with working car therefore she can sue for damages. The other thing I'm not sure about but in England and Wales you can return an item after you have made 50% of the payments under Hire Purchase.

Really you need to think about returning this lecturer somewhere...

You sure it doesnt have a list of instructions and the end one is ignore steps 2 to 10? I miss that little exercise we use to do with people

edit oh it was repaired - well you can still use some of that...

xoxyx

tipp1986 wrote: »

Katy fell in love with a Range Rover Evoque at their local dealership Range Motors and wanted it as soon as she saw it. Although Katy really could not afford it, she was advised that Range Motors arranged hire purchase for her through Mexx Finance.

How about this and this for a start. It's been a while, but I remember hire purchase having very specific rules.

With regard to your question 3., while I remember lecturers asking questions based on real situations, they were never so graphic! However, lecturers often base their questions on real life so as to test your research skills and to see if you can take a similar test case and, maybe, tweak it slightly so as to match the case in hand (which is one of the more relevant skills you can take from your course). This would be a good place to score high. See if there are any (even minor) differences in your case. Also, be sure to mention any alternative routes the injured party could have taken - even if it's only a single sentence saying "While x is best served doing y, they could have also considered a, b and c". It's good to show that you know all the available options.

tipp86

Thanks, some A1 tips there.

Cheats on law tipp

hey tipp1986, Jason O'Riordan and Brian Cantrell say hi

Procrastastudy

LOL this guy is going to be employing you fellas in a couple of years - takes any advantage he can get - Rule no.1 in Business :P so I'd suggest being nice.

tipp86

Cheats on law tipp wrote: »

hey tipp1986, Jason O'Riordan and Brian Cantrell say hi

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

LOL this guy is going to be employing you fellas in a couple of years - takes any advantage he can get - Rule no.1 in Business :P so I'd suggest being nice.

Dont see any difference to this than someone getting a grind for it which i have heard of happening. Im just smart/savvy enough to cut out the payment process. Il happily out myself not that it would take much detective work to figure it out.

Procrastastudy

As long as you reference who cares who you ask. I'm constantly asking people for their opinions and where I can get info.

Most of legal research at under grad level is reading Articles which is someone doing exactly that!

One of the girls in our year (I say in our year we see her at exams and piss ups) father is a barrister - you she doesn't get the odd dig out

tipp86

In question two would the creation of an agency be through Ratification?