ALDAR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Bachelor of Business Administration
Title of the Examination/Assessment CASE STUDY ASSIGNMENT
Semester Fall 2020-2021 Date
Ending date: On or before
Course Code BULW305 Course Title Business Law
Instructions to Candidates:
1. Do not open this exam paper until you are told by the invigilator.
2. This exam paper consists of ____ pages (including this cover sheet)
3. Students are expected to respect the College code of Academic honesty and conduct
themselves according to these standards. Students who violate academic integrity standards
during the exams will be subject to disciplinary measures as stated in the Student Academic
Integrity Policy in the student handbook.
Marks Distribution as per Questions and CLOs
Question Maximum Marks Marks Awarded Relevant
C L O
1 5 5 3
2 10 5+5 4
3 5 5 5
Total Marks: 20
Page 1 of 4
1. Describe the below given (CLO3) (2+2+1=5 marks)
• A) Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co  1 QB 256 Court of Appeal (CLO3)
A Newspaper advert placed by the defendant stated:-
£100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who
contracts the influenza after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks
according to the printed directions supplied with each ball. £1000 is deposited with the
Alliance Bank, shewing our sincerity in the matter.”
Mrs Carlill purchased some smoke balls and used them according to the directions and
caught flu. She sought to claim the stated £100 reward. The defendant raised the
following arguments to demonstrate the advertisement was a mere invitation to treat
rather than an offer:
1. The advert was a sales puff and lacked intent to be an offer.
2. It is not possible to make an offer to the world.
3. There was no notification of acceptance.
4. The wording was too vague to constitute an offer since there was no stated time
limit as to catching the flu.
5. There was no consideration provided since the ‘offer’ did not specify that the user of
the balls must have purchased them.
Explain the above case and belongs to which contract?
2. Explain the below given case study which act belongs to and who is the Held
Responsibility? (CLO4) (2+2+1+=5 marks)
A) Levey v Goldberg  1 KB 688
• The claimants claimed damages from the defendant for not accepting cloth which he had
agreed to buy. Under the contract, delivery was due to be completed by 20 August 1920.
During August and September 1920 the defendant asked the claimants if they would
extend the time for delivery. The claimants agreed. Later the defendant refused to accept
delivery of the goods on the grounds that the delivery had not been made within the
B) Explain the below given case study (CLO4) (2+2+1=5 marks)
• 1. Margaret owned an antique store that specialized in rare porcelain dolls. When she
opened the business in 1989, it was at a shop in an eastern suburb of Melbourne. In 1999
she started to advertise on the Internet and by 2006 the business had grown to the point
where she needed help to keep the business going. After a family discussion one night at
the kitchen table in July 2006, it was agreed that Margaret would probably keep the
business going for another couple of years and then retire. Emily, her youngest daughter
and aged 16, would work in the shop as long as was needed and in return, she would
receive any unsold dolls. When Margaret retired at the end of 2009, she decided that she
would give the unsold stock to charity and they could auction it and keep the proceeds.
3. Explain the below given case study which act belongs to and who is the Held
Responsibility? (CLO5) (2+2+1+=5 marks)
Bentley v Craven (1853)
• Bentley and Craven were in partnership together in a firm which bought and sold sugar.
Craven was the firm’s buyer and on account of his business skill was occasionally able to
buy sugar at a greatly reduced price. On one occasion he was offered a consignment of
sugar at well below the wholesale price. He bought this sugar himself and then sold it to
the firm at the going wholesale rate.
1.The case of Carbolic smoke ball company and Mrs. Calil is based on terms of unilateral contracts. A unilateral contract is a contract that is accepted by performance, where the offered promise an award in exchange for the party performing a duty. Unilateral contracts are legally enforced in courts, where the challenging part with the contract is when the offeror refuses to pay the offer, such as in the case of Carbolic Smoke Ball (Bayern, 2015). Mrs. Carlli was supposed to be offered the award because she had agreed to use the carbolic smoke ball three times a day. According to the argument presented by the Carbolic Smoke Ball, it is possible and allowed to make an offer to the world. According to unilateral contracts., the offered does not have to communicate concerning the contract’s acceptance. The contract terms do not have the communication part because acceptance or agreement is based on action or performance.
On the other hand, the defendant did not value the health of people when using the ball. There was no time limit, where the company did not provide a time limit (Bayern, 2015). However, the consideration of awarding people who contract influenza still using the ball was enough concerning the breach of contract. Mrs. Carli could use various elements, such as the contract was broken, Mrs. Carli suffered a loss from using the smoked ball, a unilateral contract existed, and the company was responsible.
2. a) Levey’s V. Goldberg case is based on discharge by agreement a term used in assessing the contractual obligations between the seller and the buyer (Lazzarini, 2015). The defendant had waived to deliver the cloth by the twentieth, and after delivery, the claimant refused to accept the product. Therefore, the claimant deserves to be compensated for the damages for not accepting the product.
Discharging an agreement but based on the presence of an accord and satisfaction. An agreement to discharge the delivery is essential, where both parties must agree and come to terms about discharging the contract (Eenmaa-Dimitrieva, and Schmidt-Kessen, 2019). On the other hand, satisfaction is a significant consideration when discharging a contract. Calling off a contract should be agreed upon in the contract deed. On the other hand, if one of the parties had waived rights and the other party failed to offer any service in return, the contract does not require any accord or satisfaction before discharge.
b. The case of Margaret and Emily is based on contract terms and mode of agreement, where the contract was made through an oral agreement. When the contract was formed, Emily was under eighteen, which is a valid contract according to various 2009 business law considerations (Lazzarini, 2015). A contract with a person below the age of eighteen invalids, voidable, and void, where a minor can evade liability by repudiating the contract after attaining eighteen. After attaining the age of eighteen, Emily has the right to sue Margaret in the court of law and take the rightful benefits.
3. Bentley and Craven are involved in a partnership deed, where the case is based on rendering real accounts and profits (O’Connor, and Schneider, 2019). Craven is held accountable for using partnership assets to gain benefits. According to the laws, Craven should present the firm’s benefits because the profits belong to the company legally.
In a partnership business, partners are expected to provide accurate accounts and sales information and everything that could affect the partnership business and legal representation (O’Connor, and Schneider, 2019). According to section eight of business law, every partner in the business must account for the benefits or profits made without the other party’s consent, such as in the case of Bentley and Craven. The term applies to any transaction made, use of the business name, or business assets to acquire benefits. The partner is held accountable should render the benefits to the firm.
Bayern, S. (2015). Offer and Acceptance in Modern Contract Law: A Needles Concept. Calif. L. Rev., 103, 67.
Eenmaa-Dimitrieva, H., & Schmidt-Kessen, M. J. (2019). Creating markets in no-trust environments: The law and economics of smart contracts. Computer law & security review, 35(1), 69-88.
Lazzarini, S. T. (2015). Actions Have Consequences: Waiver and Estoppel in United States Courts in the
O’Connor, B. J., & Schneider, S. R. (2019). Top 10 Mistakes and Oversights in Reviewing, Drafting and Understanding Operating/Partnership Agreements. In Tax Conference (Marshall-Wythe School of Law). William and Mary Tax Conference (No. 65, pp. 7_1-7_34). College of William and Mary, Marshall-Wythe School of Law. Context of Commercial Arbitraion. Rev. Bras. Arb., 12, 147.