Business law case study Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Business law case study - Coursework Example The Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) was passed on May, 2005, and had to be executed by member countries into national law by June 12, 2007 and it was applicable by December 12, 2007. Nevertheless, some member countries – for example, the UK, Spain and Germany – were late in adapting this law. It is said that there are various forms of misleading information about advertising on the internet, but the main form is still associated with misleading pricing information. Clients have complained that some of the prices that firms put on their websites are not the actual prices they pay when they buy the product. Such a case was witnessed in Hillingdon Electricals Ltd (HEL) when they stated on their website that the price of iPads and Tablets were ?29 and ?19, respectively while the actual prices were ?290 and ?190 respectively. This matter brought up a lot of controversy to the organisation, where they ended up stating that it was due to human error. Some clients how visited the store demanded to be sold the gadgets on the prices advertised while others, who had bought the gadgets online went to the store to demand for refunds. This paper will discuss these issues and advice specific clients who were caught in this tussle on their next move. Scenario A – Tony and Ursula Under the Sale of Goods Act of 1979, there are a harsh set of regulations, which sellers and retailers are expected to abide by (Wallington, 2010). When someone purchases a good, it signifies that they have entered into an agreement or contract with the vendor of the good. Under the Sale of Goods Act also, goods should be described, fit the purpose and of satisfactory quality. Fitting the purposes signifies both their day to day use, as well as also any particular purpose, which the buyer agreed with the vendor (Kidner, 2012). For instance, a buyer might specifically request for a printer, which would be compatible with his/her computer. Products sold are also expected to fit nay sample they were show in-store or any explanation in the brochure. Also, the issue of pricing comes into play because there are cases where a client can buy a product online thinking that they paid the price stated on the website and that is not true (McCarthy, 2010). If you wish to claim for a refund under the Sale of Goods Act, then you have a couple possible ways of settling your issue, relying on the situation and what you wish to be done. The claimant’s rights are against the vendor – the organisation, which sold them the product – not the producer, and so they should make any claim not towards the manufacture, but against the retailer. Nevertheless, this act does not apply to products that a client has bought on hire purchase (HP). If someone buys a product, which turns out to be flawed, then they can opt to reject it. This means they can return it and get a full refund of their money (Slocombe, 2012). The word flawed was explained at the begin ning of this section, which also included pricing errors (Wallington, 2010). However, the law only grants you a logical period to do this – what is logical lays on the good and how clear the error is. But, even with complex items or considerable purchases, it is much safer to work with the basis that you normally have less than three to four weeks from the day you received the product to reject it (Kidner,