Legal Institutions - Assignment 2

Legal Institutions - Assignment 2

Question One (1000 words)

Your written work should conform to all appropriate conventions of grammar and spelling and legal referencing.

Gina was establishing her new coffee shop.  She went shopping for a rug for the shop as she knew that there would be a large number of people in and out of the shop, and consequently wanted something that would be tough and not wear and tear. 

She saw a blue rug on special at The Clever Carpet Company. She enquired of the sales assistant about how easy it would be to clean, explaining that she needed something which could stand up to heavy traffic in her shop. The sales assistant assured her that the rug was a good quality wool, which was fully stain protected, and any stain could be cleaned away easily.  Even on special the rug was very expensive, but Gina thought it was worth the price, and so bought it for $48,000.

Gina contacted Fastway, a courier company to pick up and deliver the new rug.  She rang and gave her details over an automated voice system.  The system provided a price, and advised that the rug would be delivered in two days’ time and that a tax invoice would be sent.  Gina gave her credit card details for payment when asked if she accepted the quotation provided.

The rug was not in fact delivered for another 5 weeks – accompanied by the tax invoice for the original payment and a bill for an additional $50,000 for storage charges. The reverse of the tax invoice was headed ‘Terms and Conditions’ and advised that all contracts were made subject to these terms and conditions. Paragraph 49 noted that the courier company accepted no responsibility for timely delivery, and would store customer’s goods at their warehouse until a suitable delivery vehicle was available. Storage was in accordance with the storage conditions on their website. When Gina checked their website, she found that the courier company’s charges for storage were $10,000 a week – payable COD.

The rug was permanently stained by spilt coffee on the second day of the shop being opened.   When Gina contacted The Clever Carpet Company they told her they were very sorry but refused to allow her to return the rug.

Using and applying the law as found in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2QB 163 and s55 Australian Consumer Law and any relevant cases.

advise Gina.