商务契约关系OUTCOME1.pptVIP

Outcome 1 考前辅导 * 关于A4Note应注意的事项 不宜有考试导向 例如：在笔记中的知识点前标注题号，且与考试题目顺序是“对号入座”；笔记内容恰到好处地是考试的内容。 Note 的用途 主要是“提纲挈领”性总结概括相关的知识点，用以提示。在考试答题时，不允许通篇誊抄笔记，而应在笔记的基础上做必要的扩充。 Note 的内容 应自行整理，严禁抄袭AE,集中化大篇幅地抄袭教材或教师讲义，及同学之间相互抄袭。违规的Notes将一律不允许带入考场。 Note 的版式 必须用蓝色的水笔或圆珠笔手写。 * 答题技巧 首先针对问题写出你的结论. 对结论加以证明,即引用法律条文+个人理解. 结合案例加以说明. 引用的案例要简述案件Facts and the decision of the court. * Case 1 Maggie McGlumpha bought a tumble dryer in a sale from Thunderbolt Lightning, an electrical retail store in Inverness. The store was selling the appliance for the very reasonable price of ￡250. About two months later, when Maggie was using the dryer, a latent defect in the wiring of the appliance caused it to short circuit with the result that it caught fire. The combination of flames and thick black smoke belching out of the dryer completely destroyed Maggie’s new fitted kitchen — not to mention the clothes which were in the dryer at the time. Luckily, Maggie had popped down to the shops when the incident occurred and she was unhurt. * Case 1 SOGA1979的自动适用条款第14条 What are implied terms? 第14 条的内容是什么？结合案例分析。 第14 条在什么情况下适用（apply） 对于打折的商品(in a sale)，第14条是否仍然适用？ SOGA1979的第48A条第3款 至少引用一个案例 * Case 1 Maggie’s son Charlie, who was visiting from Australia, was not as lucky as his mum. He was in the house having a nap on the sitting room couch. Charlie was later taken to hospital and diagnosed as suffering from serious smoke inhalation and severe shock. * Case 1 SOGA1979 的第14条不适用于Charlie的情况。为什么？ Product liability of Consumer Protection Act 1987， 具体内容， 结合案例分析。 Strict liability of the producer * Case 1 Thunderbolt Lightning is now claiming that the defect in the appliance is not their problem. If Maggie wishes to take matters further, she should contact the manufacturer of the tumble dryer as the problem clearly centres around a manufacturing defect, the existence of which the store could have had no knowledge. Maggie has pointed out to the manager that she did purchase the goods partly on the strength of the manufacture