Hi. I really need some guidelines on how to answer this essay, I dont do law at university however its part of my course so I have to do one module of law. Its a case study and I have to answer the different parts. If anyone can guide me in the right direction I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
Stevens, Wiley & Co, a firm of accountants, were given a presentation by Gerald, a director of Ace computers Ltd. His presentation provided an explanation of new technologies that had been introduced during the past 12 months and of the various models that Ace computers Ltd could currently supply, including its top-of-the-range personal computer, the XL8000. Gerald was asked whether the XL8000 model was fitted with the fastest processor available in the market. Gerald replied that it was fitted with the IPCIS 40 processor and that this was the fastest processor available in the market and that in his opinion there was no other personal computer in the market that could match the XL8000 in terms of performance and specification. As a result of the presentation Stevens, Wiley & Co ordered 20 personal computers from Ace computers Ltd, a company from which it had bought personal computers on a number of occasions in the past. Damien one of the partners in Stevens, Wiley & Co also ordered a laptop computer from Ace Computers Ltd for his personal use at his home.
Four of the 20 personal computers supplied to Stevens, Wiley & Co proved to be faulty within a week and another 10 of the personal computers developed faults a few weeks later as has the personal computer supplied for Damien. As a result of the failure of the computers Stevens, Wiley & Co were unable to produce work for some of their clients on time and have had to suffer a reduction of their fees for this work due for the late completion. Stevens, Wiley & Co, has also had to turn down a new contract that it had been offered because they had insufficient working computers to carry out the tasks that were required by the contract.
Furthermore Damien and Stevens, Wiley & Co have discovered that the IPCIS 40 was not the fastest processor available in the market at the time of the purchase, and that the faster IPCIS 60 had been available for some months and that the Diamond 1000 model produced by King Computers Ltd was vastly superior to the XL8000 in terms of performance and specification.
Both Stevens, Wiley & Co and Damien have demanded that Ace Computers Ltd collect the faulty computers and refund the purchase price paid for the computers. In addition Stevens, Wiley & Co are seeking compensation for the reduction in the fees that they suffered due to the late completion of the work for their clients and for the loss of the new contract that they had been offered. The firm is also arguing that Ace computers Ltd should take back the other XL8000 computers supplied because it feels that it was mislead by the claims made by Ace Computers Ltd in respect of its XL8000 model at the presentation given by its director, Gerald.
In response Ace computers Ltd have written to both Damien and Stevens, Wiley & Co pointing out that on the back of the invoices which accompanied the computers when they were delivered, it states that Ace Computers Ltd will not be liable for the breach of any term of the contract, whether express of implied.
REQUIRED
Advise Ace Computers Ltd in relation to the following issues:
- Its legal position with respect to the faulty computers that is has supplied both to Stevens, Wiley & Co and to Damien.
- Its legal position with respect of the claims made by the director Gerald in relation to the XL8000 model.
- The compensation being claimed by Stevens, Wiley & Co in relation to the reduction of fees and loss of a contract
- The likely effectiveness of the exclusion clause that it has included on the back of its invoices in relation to the potential liability for the matters considered above.
Stevens, Wiley & Co, a firm of accountants, were given a presentation by Gerald, a director of Ace computers Ltd. His presentation provided an explanation of new technologies that had been introduced during the past 12 months and of the various models that Ace computers Ltd could currently supply, including its top-of-the-range personal computer, the XL8000. Gerald was asked whether the XL8000 model was fitted with the fastest processor available in the market. Gerald replied that it was fitted with the IPCIS 40 processor and that this was the fastest processor available in the market and that in his opinion there was no other personal computer in the market that could match the XL8000 in terms of performance and specification. As a result of the presentation Stevens, Wiley & Co ordered 20 personal computers from Ace computers Ltd, a company from which it had bought personal computers on a number of occasions in the past. Damien one of the partners in Stevens, Wiley & Co also ordered a laptop computer from Ace Computers Ltd for his personal use at his home.
Four of the 20 personal computers supplied to Stevens, Wiley & Co proved to be faulty within a week and another 10 of the personal computers developed faults a few weeks later as has the personal computer supplied for Damien. As a result of the failure of the computers Stevens, Wiley & Co were unable to produce work for some of their clients on time and have had to suffer a reduction of their fees for this work due for the late completion. Stevens, Wiley & Co, has also had to turn down a new contract that it had been offered because they had insufficient working computers to carry out the tasks that were required by the contract.
Furthermore Damien and Stevens, Wiley & Co have discovered that the IPCIS 40 was not the fastest processor available in the market at the time of the purchase, and that the faster IPCIS 60 had been available for some months and that the Diamond 1000 model produced by King Computers Ltd was vastly superior to the XL8000 in terms of performance and specification.
Both Stevens, Wiley & Co and Damien have demanded that Ace Computers Ltd collect the faulty computers and refund the purchase price paid for the computers. In addition Stevens, Wiley & Co are seeking compensation for the reduction in the fees that they suffered due to the late completion of the work for their clients and for the loss of the new contract that they had been offered. The firm is also arguing that Ace computers Ltd should take back the other XL8000 computers supplied because it feels that it was mislead by the claims made by Ace Computers Ltd in respect of its XL8000 model at the presentation given by its director, Gerald.
In response Ace computers Ltd have written to both Damien and Stevens, Wiley & Co pointing out that on the back of the invoices which accompanied the computers when they were delivered, it states that Ace Computers Ltd will not be liable for the breach of any term of the contract, whether express of implied.
REQUIRED
Advise Ace Computers Ltd in relation to the following issues:
- Its legal position with respect to the faulty computers that is has supplied both to Stevens, Wiley & Co and to Damien.
- Its legal position with respect of the claims made by the director Gerald in relation to the XL8000 model.
- The compensation being claimed by Stevens, Wiley & Co in relation to the reduction of fees and loss of a contract
- The likely effectiveness of the exclusion clause that it has included on the back of its invoices in relation to the potential liability for the matters considered above.