BUSINESS LAW: NICOLE VERSUS MICHAEL COPY 2
BusinessLaw: Nicole versus Michael Copy
BusinessLaw: Nicole versus Michael Copy
Businesslaw entails all the legal issues concerning starting, operating abusiness as well as the relation between businesses and individualsand also itself. The business law case in question depicts therelation between Nicole Knight’s office supply business andMichael’s copy repair and sales. The salesperson at Michaels Copylied to Nicole telling her that the photocopy machine had justearlier produced 2,000 copies she lied about the date ofmanufacturing, the machines printing capabilities, the working of thelens as well as the month’s free service. It happened that themachine did not produce the quality printing and it also needed thelens replacement. Despite the effort of repairing the machine keptbreaking down. It turned out as Alex explained of the machine and themodel date was wrongly in formed by the Michaels Copy.
MichaelCopy salesperson, Mariel is an example of a general agent asexplained by Quinn& Jones (1995).An agent is a person who acts in the name or on behalf of the owner.Mariel’s role as an agent therefore was to carry out transactionson behalf of the principal who is the owner of Michael Copy. Marielis also designated to act in any way necessary by the principal’sdealing. The principal is therefore accountable for any agent’s actin surplus of his authority. Therefore Mariel is not personallyliable for Nicole’s loss but the business since it is treated as anentity is very much responsible. In this case also, there are twocontracts signed. The first contract was between Nicole and theFaculty of business. Nicole upheld her side of contract hence thecontract was completed. The other contract was between Nicole andMichael Copy. A contract is any provision forming part of a contract.Therefore one can sue for enforcement of valid contract except forpuff or representation contracts. An example of a puff is televisioncommercials where statements that are not supposed to be takenseriously are said while representation is one where the maker of thecontract does not guarantee the truth of a statement. This means thatMariel put forward a puffery when she spoke of the machines model butmade a term contract where one can be sued about the number of copiesthe machine made and also the lens’ condition.
Nicolehas legal right to compensation due to the breach of the contract.The amount of money she spent on the machines lens should be returnedby Michael Copy. This is type of contract is referred to as thecompensatory damage. Nicole should be reimbursed of the amount ofmoney she spent more on buying the machine. The terms of the contractclearly determine whether a contract was actually breached or not. Inour case Nicole clearly stated her business activity and the reasonof purchasing the machine as well as the performance requirement sheexpected from the machine. The salesperson with that in mind stillmanaged to get into an agreement with Nicole regardless of thenon-disclosure about the fact of the machine. Therefore Nicole oughtto sue the business entity for the above.
Accordingto Calamari, Perillo (1977) in a contract of breach of contract, oneshould raise numerous legal defenses as possible. Therefore MichaelCopy therefore in an attempt to try fighting the legal trial shouldcome up with what is known as an “affirmative defenses”. Theconfirmatory defense does not match the primary facts but assertscircumstances that resulted to the breach. Similarly, it is like theMichael Copy will agree with the accusation but still disagree withthe deduction.
Calamari,J. D., & Perillo, J. M. (1977). Thelaw of contracts.U.S.A: West Group.
Quinn,D. P., & Jones, T. M. (1995). An agent morality view of businesspolicy. Academyof Management Review,20(1),22-42.
Schaffer,R., Agusti, F., Dhooge, L., & Earle, B. (2014). Internationalbusiness law and it’s environ. U.S.A:South-WesternCollege Pub 9 edition.