Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    First of all, I'm not a Law student. I study international business and modern languages, but have to do a Law Module as part of my second year!
    Basically I understand the content relatively well on its own, but don't know here to start/how to know and apply what's relevant in certain cases. Could someone help me with the following question taken from a past paper: (May seem really easy to you law students!)

    Bright cab Ltd (BC) is a taxi company which decides to renew its fleet of vehicles. It agrees with Energy Vehicles Ltd in a document signed on 1st March, that it will purchase 15 new taxis from Energy Vehicles Ltd for delivery on 1st July. Energy Vehicles Ltd will supply the taxis, according to the document, "on credit terms". Bright cab ltd and Energy vehicles Ltd have now fallen out about the credit terms and Bright can ltd are sueing for breach of contract. Will they win? (Explain your answer)

    Anyone help?

    Thanks :-)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeE10)
    Anyone?
    If I remember correctly from my contract law exams; any civil legal action will only examin loss incurred and seek to restore both parties to the position they were in before the contract was made.

    If no money was yet exchanged and no vechicals due to be delivered for several months, Bright Cab LTD would need to prove they have suffered a financial loss (ie: they are now unable to source the vechicals from anywhere else in time for July 1st and would therefore lose out on X number of days bookings), but this is dependant on Bright Cab LTD being able to prove they could have got the vechicals from somewhere else had they ordered them by March 1st.

    IMO they would be unlikely to win the case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeE10)
    .
    Your scenario is almost identical to Scammell v Ouston. The issue is whether "on credit terms" is sufficiently certain for there to be anything for the courts to enforce.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks guys. Would anyone be able to talk me through how you'd answer this in full? Come on Law students!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JakeE10)
    First of all, I'm not a Law student. I study international business and modern languages, but have to do a Law Module as part of my second year!
    Basically I understand the content relatively well on its own, but don't know here to start/how to know and apply what's relevant in certain cases. Could someone help me with the following question taken from a past paper: (May seem really easy to you law students!)

    Bright cab Ltd (BC) is a taxi company which decides to renew its fleet of vehicles. It agrees with Energy Vehicles Ltd in a document signed on 1st March, that it will purchase 15 new taxis from Energy Vehicles Ltd for delivery on 1st July. Energy Vehicles Ltd will supply the taxis, according to the document, "on credit terms". Bright cab ltd and Energy vehicles Ltd have now fallen out about the credit terms and Bright can ltd are sueing for breach of contract. Will they win? (Explain your answer)

    Anyone help?

    Thanks :-)
    Right, credit terms are usually given by the seller to the buyer. Seller here being Energy Vehicles. According to your scenario, EV have not respected their own terms and BC is suing?
    There is no doubt that a contract has been formed [agreement, consideration, intention to create legal relations: deed-signed document]
    You'll want to research on breach of contract and remedies.
    BC is most likely to make a claim for damages or specific performance.
    Back your argument with case law!
    Sorry that's all I know, hope it helps!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArBell)
    Right, credit terms are usually given by the seller to the buyer. Seller here being Energy Vehicles. According to your scenario, EV have not respected their own terms and BC is suing?
    There is no doubt that a contract has been formed [agreement, consideration, intention to create legal relations: deed-signed document]
    You'll want to research on breach of contract and remedies.
    BC is most likely to make a claim for damages or specific performance.
    Back your argument with case law!
    Sorry that's all I know, hope it helps!
    1) Surprised that you are sure there is a contract, "on credit terms" seems very uncertain to me. Of course, it might be different if the parties had contracted this way in the past and the term could be given meaning from their prior course of dealing. If not then as I said above it is similar to Scammell v Ouston where "on hire purchase terms" was held to be so uncertain as to prevent their being a contract at all.

    2) If there is a contract, how do you know that EV 'have not respected their own terms'? There is nothing in the scenario that says so, apart from the fact that they are being sued for breach. (However, I expect that this is just an accidental omission in the question, and that what is meant is that they are refusing to supply any taxis).

    3) There is nothing in the scenario that suggests there is a deed, which you mentioned in your post. A signed document is not necessarily (or even usually) a deed. Not, of course, that the absence of a deed makes a difference in a contract for the sale of goods.

    4) The OP's scenario's question was 'will they win? (explain your answer)' so he probably doesn't need a discussion of remedies.

    Sorry for being critical - bored at work
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    1) Surprised that you are sure there is a contract, "on credit terms" seems very uncertain to me. Of course, it might be different if the parties had contracted this way in the past and the term could be given meaning from their prior course of dealing. If not then as I said above it is similar to Scammell v Ouston where "on hire purchase terms" was held to be so uncertain as to prevent their being a contract at all.

    2) If there is a contract, how do you know that EV 'have not respected their own terms'? There is nothing in the scenario that says so, apart from the fact that they are being sued for breach. (However, I expect that this is just an accidental omission in the question, and that what is meant is that they are refusing to supply any taxis).

    3) There is nothing in the scenario that suggests there is a deed, which you mentioned in your post. A signed document is not necessarily (or even usually) a deed. Not, of course, that the absence of a deed makes a difference in a contract for the sale of goods.

    4) The OP's scenario's question was 'will they win? (explain your answer)' so he probably doesn't need a discussion of remedies.

    Sorry for being critical - bored at work
    I was actually looking for clarification, as I was wondering why BC would be suing :x

    Okay my bad!

    Thanks for catching up to me so fast! Hopefully TS wouldn't have been too misguided by my x.x
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 27, 2014

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    UEA Mini Open Day Undergraduate
    Fri, 23 Nov '18
  • Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 23 Nov '18
  • Edge Hill University
    All Faculties Undergraduate
    Sat, 24 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.