Business law - situational question Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

line of credit law - situational question - Essay ExampleIn circumstance, the terms of the owners of the position garage could be considered to be legally ill-considered and therefore there could indeed be grounds for a law fount against them.This is due to the fact that within the UCTA 1977 Act and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, there prolong been galore(postnominal) clauses within company terms rendered ineffective due to the fact that they are tout ensemble infeasible (MacDonald 2004, p. 69). Of itinerary there have been many cases that have been variant from this one which have been found to hold unreasonable terms and therefore the party of each case was held responsible for the adversities that arose to the suspects. These could be cases of faulty goods and the terms of sale unreasonable, or it could be of cases stemming from an even simpler nature.One case that was found to have unreasonable terms and of which the defendant won was in AEG Ltd v. Logic Resource Ltd (Bradgate 1997, p. 582). Of course though this was not a case that mingled any form of dishonor to the defendant it could have resulted in loss of profit and adversity for the company. consequentlyce based on the laws of the UCTA 1977 Act, the defendant was awarded that which he was asking in the case due to the unreasonableness of the plaintiffs terms in the contract. This could be viewed in a similar light in regards to Helens case and the terms in the parking garage. ... Therefore, for reasons such as these and others similar, the UCTA 1977 Act looks at all occurrences, not simply injury related ones. In Helens case the terms are obviously unreasonable(as has been stated) and in that regard can not be masking as a form of protection for the owners to not have to face negligent charges and restitution remediation by the defendant, which is Helen. Furthermore, because the notice in the garage and the memo are not incorporated logically then there is a d efinite unreasonable factor being presented. Helen might have assumed that the curse of injury or danger to her body or car was only slight because she was not sure of the falling debris in the garage due to the grammatical construction. However, the London Shoe company was aware of the construction and therefore, as was stated should have known to shut down the parking garage until the construction was totally completed so that there would be no unfortunate accidents or injuries. Yet the company failed to do this and it resulted in a very adverse outcome for Helen. The owners of the parking garage definitely can not deny a sense of liability to Helen due to the fact that they did not properly post rough the construction in the parking garage and the construction in itself deviated far from any minute injury or adverse occurrence that could have taken place at any other prison term in the garage (Barmes 2004, p. 435).Furthermore, since the contract with the parking garage assig ning parking privileges to employees seemed to be breached then the owners themselves have a liability to the defendant as has been stated. The reason that there was a breach is due to the fact that the circumstances surrounding the parking garage changed when the construction took