Beginning the Law

Chapter 2

Q. What is the difference between the common law and statute law?

A. Students would be expected to:

Define what is meant by the common law and statute law.
Outline how each type of law is created.
Discuss the debate over whether judges make law, or merely discover it.
Explore what is meant by the separation of powers and which judge made law is inconsistent with pure separation of powers.
Outline the different types of statutory interpretation.

Chapter 3

Q. Harold runs a coffee shop and decides that he no longer needs his spare cappuccino maker and there he places an advert on the notice board in his coffee shop ‘For sale, a cappuccino maker, £145’. Robbie sees the advert and decides that he will buy the cappuccino maker and so he approaches Harold and offers to purchase it for £100. Harold refuses to accept £100 and says ‘No way – do you want to buy it for £130’. Two days later Robbie offers £70, as Pooja, who runs the coffee shop down the road, is selling an identical cappuccino maker for £72. Harold responds ‘I will accept your earlier offer of £100’.

A. This question concerns the formation of a valid contract. Harold’s advert is an invitation to treat and is not an offer, as it is merely inviting those who see the advert to make an offer which Harold if free to accept or reject. The first offer is made by Robbie, and Harold refuses to accept this and makes a counter offer. Harold’s counter offer revokes Robbie’s offer (see Hyde v Wrench (1840) 49 E.R. 132). Therefore Harold cannot later attempt to accept Robbie’s offer.

Chapter 4

Q. Jonathan contracts with English Ltd to purchase a van for his business. Jonathan is a sole trader and sells garden furniture. The contract states that ss.13, 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 are excluded. The van cists £2,000 and is eight years old. Jonathan has used the van for three days before he discovers that the bottom of the van is covered in rust and that unless it is repaired it will no longer be safe to drive.

Advise Jonathan as to whether he can sue English Ltd for breach of the implied terms?

The question concerns the terms implied by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the ability to exclude these terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 implies a number of terms into every contract for the sale of goods, including:

Section 13 the goods must match their contract description.
Section 14(2) the goods must be of satisfactory quality.
Section 14(3) the goods must be fit for purpose.

Here the van is arguable not of satisfactory quality and if it is not roadworthy then it is not fit for purpose. If the implied terms are breached then this will amount to breach of a condition and Jonathan can reject the van and demand his money back from the seller.

However, the contract contains an exclusion clause that has been incorporated into the contract and covers the breach. The question is whether the exclusion clause is valid under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1979. We know that Jonathan is using the van for business purposes and therefore he is not a consumer for the purposes of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1979. The exclusion clause could be valid so long as it was reasonable. The court would need to consider a number of factors in order to ascertain whether the exclusion clause was reasonable.