Answer & Explanation

Answer & Explanation

Verified

Solved by verified expert

Business Law

Step-by-step explanation

Identify key legal issues, the statutes and case law relied on, court reason (s) for the case judgement, and final outcome of the case

Issue; the key legal issues in this case is whether IBGY Pty who is the defendant is liable for the repayment of the cost exceeding the value of the stock in trade or could as well reject such items upon selection. Another issue is as to whether there was charging of the stock at market value or rather at cost or below cost thereby amounting to $48,296.71 which the defendant was obliged to paying to the plaintiff. By the defendant assuming personal liability through the signing of the IOU which the plaintiff gave to the bank as a form of security for the loan rather than the company being liable for this debt is another legal issue. 

Rule; The ruling of this case was relied in other proceedings by the judges as according to Hutley J.A. who ruled that there was replacement of intercompany liability with inter personal liability due to the promise being made by the appellant which meant that the vendor would no longer hold the purchaser liable for the amount being owed. 

Application; case law was applied in this case and which was relied is Fisher v Leslie 1975 and Baeeching v Westbrook. Both parties in this case seems to have fallen out of business transactions due to their friendship due to their engagement in commercial activities through family companies. The reasons for the ruling was due to the I.O.U being taken as an admission of personal debt which was found to be sufficient consideration for the debt while satisfying the bank manager. A conclusion was derived that both parties never directed their minds to question of consideration meaning that the former debt was unenforceable of consideration. Due to the clause entitling provisions to acceptance or declining of excess amount it makes the purchaser to be inn a powerful position to bargaining with the vendor.

Conclusion; the case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff which demanded the defendant to repay the amount that he owed to the plaintiff in cash. Since the document signed by the defendant was personally liable to pay rather than the purchase company which ought to be liable for this debt thereby constituted to the court ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

Student reviews

100% (2 ratings)

Is this answer helpful?

---

谢谢亲的回惠顾，期待您的下次光临！添加客服微信:bbwxnly，购买沟通交流so easy


Coursehero｜Chegg｜StuDocu| Studymode｜Oneclass｜Scribd｜Studyblue｜Termpaperwarehouse｜SolutionInn.