吕杨禧

Question1

The first issue is whether Alex has a contract with the store for all used iPhone for just ?100. An invitation to treat is an invitation to be made by someone else， and a contract is formed only when offeror agrees to an acceptance （Macintyre， 2018）. In the case of Partridge v Crittenden [1968] 1 WLR 1204， the advertised the price of chicken was an invitation to treat， not an offer. The stores slogan was similar to the previous case， so it is simply an invitation to treat. Its purpose is to promote sales. In summary， there is no contract between Alex and the store.

In this case， the second question that needs to be addressed is whether Alex should get the phone case. According to Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 525， it mentioned that advertisement sometimes was a unilateral contract. A unilateral contract definition is the contract agreement that the offeror accepts to be paid after the occurrence of a particular act （Macintyre， 2018）. In Alexs case， the stores expression of buying used iPhone and getting a phone case also constitutes a unilateral contract. And Alex had fulfilled these requirements， so Alex has a contract with the store. Therefore， Alex can get the phone case from the store.

The final question in case is whether there is a contract between Alex and Charles. An offer may be revoked at any time before it is accepts， but the revocation must to be accepted before acceptance is received （Macintyre， 2018）. Apparently， Charles did not withdraw his offer before Alex accepted it. So when Alex accepted Charles offer within a week， they had formed the contract. In addition， in the case of Stevenson， Jacques & Co v Mclean （1880） 5 QBD 346， it stated that a request for more information about offer did not terminate the offer. Based on this precedent， Alex asked Charles if delivery was included， it also just asked for more information， so the contract was not termination. In short， there is a good contract between Alex and Charles and Alex can sue Charles for breach of contract.

Question 2

The issue worth pondering is whether Daisy is unfairly dismissed by the manager. Section 95 states that when the employer terminates the contract， the employee is dismissed， with or without prior notice. So it seems that when the manager told Daisy not to come back， Daisy was dismissed. Based on Section 98 ERA 1996， the employer should give the reason for the dismissal. However， the manager asked Daisy to leave without giving any explanation， although the manager said Daisy was not doing the job well enough， it can not regarded that the dismissal was fair. In the case of Davison v Kent Meters Ltd [1975] IRLR 145， an employee is unfairly dismissed for a job mistake because no one told her how to do it right.  Daisy was fired for not being told how to improve her work ability， so it was unfair to be dismissed. Moreover， Section 94（1） ERA 1996 gives a statutory right not to be unfairly dismissed to employees who have been continuously employed for at least two years. Daisy has continuously worked as a secretary for five years， so she was qualified enough to claim unfair dismissal. According to Section 111 ERA 1996， Daisy can put forward compensation within three months. In a word， Daisy was unfairly dismissed by the manager and Daisy can sue the manager for compensation.

Question 3

The issue in this case is whether the shopping center is responsible for Eric. In Wheat v Lacon [1966] AC 552， Lord Denning mentioned that anyone who has a degree of control over the state of the premises is an occupier. By this definition， the shopping center is an occupier. Additionally， Section 2（2） of the Occupiers Liability Act （OLA） 1957 laid down the duty of care to lawful visitors. The shopping center is a public place， and all customers allowed to enter the shopping center are legitimate visitors. Therefore， the shopping center owes a duty of care to Eric. As a result， the shopping center is responsible for Eric and Eric can sue the shopping center for compensation.

The issue to be considered is whether government has the tort of negligence. As Lord Arkin said that people must act carefully to avoid any foreseeable harm to their neighbors. It was government workers negligence to place warning signs near the hole to warn pedestrians， and it was their negligence that led Eric to fall into the hole and break his leg. So the government workers had a duty to take reasonable care for Eric. The government is responsible for this because the workers are government employees， so government is vicariously liable for employees who commit torts during the course of it employment. As a consequence， Eric can sue the government for the tort of negligence.

The issue is whether there is negligence， and who is responsible for Eric. Under Part 1 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987， Eric can file a statutory claim against the manufacturer of the phone without conditions. Besides， the Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 claimed that manufactures have a duty of care to ensure that their products do not harm users. Erics hand was injured when the phone caught fire， so the manufacturer failed to meet its duty of care. Unless the retailer of the product is a private label owner， other types of stores are not responsible （Macintyre， 2018）. Based on these reasons， the phone manufacturer should in charge of Eric， and the store may be responsible for Eric.

Question 4

The issue to be considered is who has pay the cost. Henry had apparent authority to bind the company as in Freeman & Lockyer （a firm） v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480. For a surveyor， Henry gave the impression that he had a right to bind the company. It was because a surveyor relied on this performance that the contract was signed， so ABC Co Ltd would be liable on the contract because of a representation that they made. What is more， in the case of Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549， it held that the company was bound by the contract because the chairman had implied actual authority to bind the company. And Lord Denning said that the chairman of the board exercising the general manager in the case has both apparent authority and the implied actual authority. Base on this precedent， Fred and Gavin let Henry run the company， and they knew that Henry was the general manager， even though he had not been appointed. Therefore， Henry had not only the apparent authority but also the implied actual authority. If sued by a surveyor， ABC Co Ltd could counterclaim for the price and raise any appropriate defense. Besides， if Henry had breached his duty to exercise an appropriate amount of care and skills， company could claim damages from he. All in all， ABC Co Ltd would be bound by the contract， and Fred， Gavin and Henry would all have to pay.

Question 5

Alexs case should be tried in County Court. County Court hears claims under ?100，000 for breach of contract or tort in a business dispute （Macintyre， 2018）. In this case， both the store and Charles were in breach of contract， and the compensation for Alex was less than ?100，000. And Alex did not suffer any physical injuries. Therefore， the case should be heard in the County Court.

The case between Daisy and the manager should be heard in an Employment Tribunal. This is because almost all employment-related claims start in an Employment Tribunal， with claims for less than ?25，000， which has the power to hear any ordinary case of breach of contract （Macintyre， 2018）. According to Section 113 ERA 1996， it can be roughly known that Daisy's claim amount is not as high as ?25，000. Hence， this case will be heard in an employment tribunal.

As for Eric， he can bring his case to County Court or High Court. Because in County Court， claims are heard for less than ?100，000 and personal injury claim for less than ?1，000， while in the High Court claims are heard for more than ?100，000， or for personal injury less than ?50，000 （Macintyre， 2018）. In this case， the amount of damages Eric was awarded was not know， so Eric could go to the County Court or the High Court depending on the amount of claims.

For ABC Co Ltd and the surveyor， they can go to the Chancery Division. Because the Chancery Division deals with matters arising from equity （Macintyre， 2018）. In this case， what is involved is the problem of agency. Because agency is a kind of fiduciary relationship， having its origins in equity （Macintyre， 2018）. Trusts is a form of equitable affairs， so the case is heard in the Chancery Division.

ADR： For Alex， filing a lawsuit has several drawbacks. Court is more expensive and slower. In addition， Alex may be asked to pay legal costs for the other party if the case goes to court. So Alex can use arbitration in ADR to settle disputes. By arbitration， cases can be settle in private and the proceedings can faster than litigation. Additionally， according to Section 1 the Arbitration Act 1996， the purpose of arbitration is to enable an impartial tribunal to settle disputes fairly without unnecessary delay or cost. Hence， it was a good choice for Alex to resolve the dispute through ARD.

Reference List

[1]Macintyre， E. （2018）. Business Law. 9th edn. Pearson： Pearson Education Limited.

成都理工大學管理科学学院