Preview

Course Work in Introduction to Business Law

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1059 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Course Work in Introduction to Business Law
Case of Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd. V S. Spanglett Ltd. Randall {1961} 1 QB 374

The decision of the case of ‘Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd. v S. Spanglett Ltd. Randall [1961] 1 QB 374’ was made by the Court of Appeal

The Judges who decided this case were Sellers, Pearce and Devlin L.JJ.

The case was heard on 4th, 7th and 8th of November and 15th of December 1960.

S. Spanglett Ltd were a Furniture manufacturers in London

The key facts relating to Archbolds (Freightage) Ltd’s claim were:
The defendants were Furniture manufacturers in London and owned a number of vans with ‘C’ licences, which did not allow them to carry for reward the goods of others.
The plaintiffs were carriers with offices in London and Leeds and their vehicles had ‘A’ licences, which enable them to carry the goods of others for reward.
There was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant for carrying goods by van
The plaintiff did not know that the defendant’s vans had only ‘C’ licence.
The goods from the loaded van were stolen on the way to London

S Spanglett Ltd said they were not liable to Archbolds (Freightage) because they pleaded illegality of the contract. Their motive was the lack of ‘A’ licence of their vans, which is required by the Act of 1933.

Yes the court decided in favour of “Archibolds (Freightage) Ltd”. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed with costs. Finally “S Spanglett Ltd” was obliged to pay back the stolen load.

Sale of Goods Act 1979

“A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price”. The definition is proved in “Sale of Goods Act 1979”, Part II – “Formation of the contract”, section 2 – “Contract of sale”,(1)

The “Sale of Goods Act 1979” is part of the civil law. This means that problems you have with any goods you have purchased are not a criminal matter, so the police will not be involved. You have to



References: STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS.(2000), Retrieved April, 9, 2009 from http://www.egos.co.uk/legislation/Consumer_Protection__Distance_Selling_regs_2000_as_amended.pdf Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 2334 (2000), Retrieved April, 9, 2009 from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979 (2003), Retrieved April, 9, 2009 from http://www.johnantell.co.uk/SOGA1979.htm Buying goods - Sale of Goods Act (n.d.), Retrieved April, 9, 2009 from http://www.moneymatterstome.co.uk/8-Consumer-rights-responsibilities/Sub1/ButingGoods-SaleOfGoodsAct.htm Magrath, P. (1996), Law Report: Insurer must pay for accident in car park, Retrieved April, 9, 2009 from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-insurer-must-pay-for-accident-in-car-park-1312758.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    11. It was the duty of the Defendant to ensure safe and proper loading, securing and inspection of cargo prior to transit. Defendant breached that duty of due care by failing to use proper procedures and failed to ensure safe conditions for the shipment of their…

    • 833 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: William W. McBoyle (defendant) operated a commercial airport at Galena, Ill. McBoyle hired A.J. Lacey as an aviator for a period of six months. In that time, McBoyle induced Lacey to go to the Aircraft corporation at Ottawa, IL and steal such Waco Airplane. The defendant was convicted of transporting an airplane from Illinois to Oklahoma, knowing it was stolen. The defendant was sentenced to three years imprisonment and ordered to pay $2,000 fine in violation to the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. The defendant appealed and his judgment of conviction was affirmed. The US Supreme Court granted certiorary to determine whether an airplane is a ‘vehicle’ under the Act. unnecessary to transfer these facts to this brief since it was from a previous holding.…

    • 809 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Legt 1710 Assignment 1

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The hearing of this case was held in the Court of Appeal of the New South Wales Supreme Court.…

    • 1249 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    PA205

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages

    On the occasion in question, defendant, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., the defendant failed to secure the cargo on his truck causing them to fall into the plaintiff’s path.…

    • 428 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Usyd Claw1001 Paper

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages

    'Appellants were employed by the respondent as baggage handler at Sydney Airport, they were dismissed from their employment' for stealing funds. 'Appellants sought an order for imposition of penalty and payment of penalty to them.' Trial judge found out respondents in 'terminating the appellants’ employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the claims.' 'The Full Court held that it was contrary however appellants were still not entitled to damages for breach of contract.'…

    • 1128 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Goal: the law which control the smugglers who made life much harder for British customs officials trying to enforce trade laws…

    • 652 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    In this case, through the events that had transpired the drivers had committed larceny, and driver #2 also committed extortion and assault on truck driver #1.…

    • 505 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Best Essays

    This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia. However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the English approach to be adopted in the Australian context. Such an adoption may be advisable in light of the judicial and extra-judicial commentary suggesting that the orthodox approach is in fact not properly aligned with equitable principles. The discussion of this possibility involves not only an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, but also a determination as to the extent to which the separate application of each approach could result in a divergent outcome.…

    • 3483 Words
    • 14 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Best Essays

    [ 9 ]. Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ Case”) (1920) CLR 129, 145.…

    • 4001 Words
    • 17 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Business p2 unit 2

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The sales of goods act just implies that the business must ensure all their products are satisfactory and they sell goods to their requirements and it must meet the description.…

    • 310 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Time for performance/rejection of goods – this is an allotted amount of time that allows the buyer to return items after received, this is typically 14 – 31 days. In my contract this is underlined as number 1 in the quick summary page. This is a fair term as it does not limit the liability or disadvantage the consumer. The consumer protection regulations (2000) would affect this as it states the amount of days allowed for rejection of goods. It is usually 7 days, however o2 have allowed 14 days.…

    • 909 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Defendant’s RV was considered to be an automobile when the closed container was found in it.…

    • 879 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Best Essays

    Unconscionability

    • 2687 Words
    • 11 Pages

    [ 6 ]. Cobbe v Yeoman 's Row Management Ltd [2008] 1 W.L.R. 1752 Lord Walker 92…

    • 2687 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Lang v Morrison

    • 283 Words
    • 2 Pages

    In Lang v James Morrison & Co Ltd (1912) 13 CLR 1, an action was brought by an English company, James Morrison & Co Ltd, against three defendants, J McFarland, T Lang and W Keates. The plaintiffs carried on the business of receiving and disposing of frozen meat from abroad. They alleged that the three defendants carried on business in Melbourne as partners under the names ‘T McFarland & Co’ and on occasions ‘McFarland, Lang and Keates’. Before the action commenced, J McFarland and W Keates became insolvent and the action proceeded against their assignees and Lang. At the trial, judgment was given for the plaintiff and Lang appealed to the High Court.…

    • 283 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Contract

    • 2831 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] UKHL 1, [1915] AC 847…

    • 2831 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays