Law for Business Case Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Law for Business Case - Essay Example The point of perfection in a contract of sale has to be distinguished from the point of perfection in other contracts. For instance, in a pawn or pledge, the owner of the thing has to deliver the personal property to be pawned or pledged as is commonly understood even in layman terms.5 Hence, if X tells Y that the former wants to borrow money from the latter with a pawn or pledge of a gold ring as security, the contract of pawn or pledge is perfected when X physically brings the gold ring to Y. Going back to sale, since it is a consensual contract, any loss of, or damage caused unto, the thing or object is to be borne by the buyer after the perfection of the contract. In the illustration given above, let it be presumed that it was Monday when A makes the offer to sell and when B accepts it. On Tuesday, C steals the car. Under that circumstance, the legal implications will be that B suffers the loss and his recourse is not against A but against C whom he (B) can run after for the car-napping or theft. For further ramification, let it be supposed that B asks A to deliver the car to him (B) and A thus drives the car from his (A's) house to the place designated by B. While on the way, the car is hit by a lightning. In that case, B still shoulders the loss. What if, on the way, A bumps a tree because of his negligence and the car is destroyed Who suffers the loss In that case, A suffers the loss. The reason for the latter does not have any bearing anymore as to whether or not the contract of sale was perfected. Instead, A shoulders the loss because of his negligence in delivering the car to B and A's liability is founded on the principles of common law on torts and damages. In the case at bar, Toys4U Ltd became the owner of the merchandise when Megastores accepted the order. Under the general rule, therefore, Toys4U Ltd should be the one to shoulder the loss of all the three damaged toys. In the present situation, it is not so. Megastores is liable for the loss of the two toys which were damaged by the fork lift truck operator while still in the custody of Megastores. This liability is anchored on the fact that the damage was caused by the negligence or imprudence of the fork lift truck operator of Megastores. Under the legal precept of respondeat superior, the liability of the servant is the liability of the master. That is the universal rule on one who acts through another.6 Stated in another way, the responsibility of the employee is the responsibility of the employer. As to the third toy which was damaged in transit, Megastores is not liable for the same. As mentioned earlier, Toys4U Ltd became the owner of the goods when it placed the order for th e toys and accepted by Megastores. From thence, Toys4U Ltd shoulders any loss or damage. As mentioned above, it has to be noted that the general rule is that the buyer shoulders the loss if the same is sustained after the perfection of the contract. There can however be conditions which the parties may agree on. For example, John offers to sell his gun to Henry. Henry accepts the offer on the condition that John delivers the specific pistol on Monday evening at his (Henry's) residence and that upon receipt of the firearm, he (Henry) pays John.