Case And Statute Law. Robert and the Wooly Traders Essay

Case And Statute Law. Robert and the Wooly Traders - Essay Example In the case involving Robert and the Wooly Traders clothing wholesalers, this paper intends to analyze the position of Robert with regard to the contract for purchase of the coats. In the contract, Robert who is a clothing retailer places an order with WT, the clothing wholesaler to have fourteen superior all-weather coats supplied to his premises. The sheepskin coats order was placed in September which upon delivery, the whole bunch sold within a week. Nevertheless, the case states that a fortnight later after the entire sale, customers started returning the coats after a rain which made the coats to have a foul smell due to wetting. It was argued that the sheepskin used in the manufacture of the coats had not been well treated and that resulted to the fouls smell after the coats became wet. This made Robert to ask for a full refund over the business transaction with the Wooly Traders. However, clause 11 of the WT has a different opinion which is the stand of the wholesale traders. It states that unsatisfactory transaction with regard to unsatisfactory goods should be reported promptly within a limit of three days after the delivery, thus stating that the pass of three days without raising the complaint automatically stands as a binding proof of satisfaction. The company therefore refused to consent to the demand of Robert of full refund as a compensation for the faulty coats sold to him. Time inconsistency would be cited as the dominant feature within this case (Anderlini and Felli, 2008, p. 1-34). General reasoning compels Robert to demand for the refund because his merchandise was returned after the sale by the customers as a result of the defects seen. The returned coats would have implied that Robert assumed the responsibility to refund fully the customers over the returned coats. Therefore, Robert was equally entitled to full compensation by the wholesale traders. However, as a contract, the placed order between the WT traders and Robert had binding fram eworks and clauses among which the clause 11 had a time structure in determining the quality of the sold goods. Three days are what the contract is based on and thus any complaint rose after the three days after delivery would not be binding from the side of the wholesaler. Robert stands to lose on the case if the court would rule based on the eleventh clause. This is because as a contract, the two parties involved are entitled to abide with the consented to rules and guidelines. Robert has no defense because it would be assumed that he read and understood to the later the provisions of the clauses binding the contract. The guiding questions of fact to be relied upon by the court would be: Had WT made the contract clauses available to Robert before the consented to the contract and place the order? Had Robert read and comprehended the clauses of the contract before placing the order? After how many days did the complainant report the complaints? What is the proof of the complaints t hat the ship-skin coats were stinky when wet? Under the consideration of these questions, the court would be in a