CONFLICT OF LAWS

Conflict Of Laws

Conflict Of Laws

Introduction

Breach of contract comes in many forms. You could have a complete breach, where one party completely refuses to deliver on any part of their undertaking. In other situations, a person may do most of what the contract requires but omit or refuse to do a small residual portion. This latter situation is called "substantial performance" and it has the effect of binding the other party to performance, at least in an equivalent portion.

Julian can sue Lichter GmbH on two basis. One is the breach of contract and the other is for damages.

Julian's right to sue in the english courts

Julian had ordered a revolutionary new lighting system from Lichter GmbH in Germany. This order was a part of his marketing strategy. He was depending on the lights for the successful marketing of his Nightclub.

When it comes to complaining about faulty goods, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is quite specific. It deems that goods must be safe, fit the description that's given of them and be both of "satisfactory" quality and fit for the purpose for which they're intended. If they have to be installed or assembled, there should be adequate instructions. Finally, if you're shown a sample first, what you're sold must match that sample. (Atiyah 2000 ) It's worth noting that responsibility lies with the retailer, not the manufacturer. Under the law, "retailer" is any non-private seller - even retail web sites are included.

It is not clear in the case if Julian sued Litcher before or after a considerable period. Thus two situations can arise.

Biason which Julian can sue in the English court

The first thing to do if you purchase a faulty item is tell the retailer. You're allowed a "reasonable" amount of time to check that the goods are satisfactory (there's no concrete time given as "reasonable"; it means different things in different situations). The best advice is to check the item immediately and return it as soon as possible if there's a problem. If the goods aren't satisfactory, you can "reject" them and get your money back (but be aware that this right is also only for a "reasonable" time).

Instead of having your money refunded, you can accept a replacement or a repair, or even legally claim compensation (which in this case would just mean the cost of replacement or repair, effectively the same as a refund). If you allow the retailer to repair the item and it still doesn't work, you may still be able to get a refund. (McKendrick 2009 )

If a fault appears after that nebulous "reasonable time" has elapsed, don't despair. If it's in the first six months, and it's not because of fair wear and tear, accidental damage or misuse, then the retailer must still repair or replace the item. If he demurs, he has to prove the item wasn't faulty in the first place, or that it couldn't be expected to last that long. Often he'll choose to replace rather than repair ...