The scenario clearly depicts the unlawful act of Aussie Clothes because they accepted the delivery and then refused to pay the price of the items. In fact, Aussie Clothes sold the items on discounted price to the customers and gain profit. The issue or the problem lies with the Aussie Clothes because instead of returning the items and terminating the contract they accepted the delivery and gained profit. On the other hand, Jump Clothing (seller), took advantage of this unlawful act of Aussie Clothes and initiated a legal action in terms of breach of contract. Consequently, the seller won within their country. However, Aussie Clothes did not defend themselves within the District Court of Hong Kong. This is another mistake occurred on behalf of the buyer. Eventually, now the seller has enforced the Hong Kong judgment in the Supreme Court of NSW.
Applicable Laws/Rules on Legal Issues
Keeping in view the scenario, it can be analyzed that Jump Clothing, Hong Kong did deliver the …show more content…
“A 'sales puff' refers to exaggerated sales talk. They are not intended by the speaker to be taken literally and a reasonable person would recognise this. As they do not constitute a 'representation' in law or a term, there is no remedy if they turn out to be false”. Whereas it can be reviewed that, the supplied may have exaggerated the quality of the product; thus, the buyer did not pay enough attention to add the terms of misrepresentation over the written contract. Thus, the buyer is only responsible for the terms that are mentioned within the written contract. On the other hand, instead of terminating the commercial contract, Aussie Clothes did an unlawful act and refused to pay for the products after the acceptance of the delivery. In fact, they sold the items to their customers on discount prices. Therefore, Aussie Clothes has breached the express contract by refusing the payment to the
Applicable Laws/Rules on Legal Issues
Keeping in view the scenario, it can be analyzed that Jump Clothing, Hong Kong did deliver the …show more content…
“A 'sales puff' refers to exaggerated sales talk. They are not intended by the speaker to be taken literally and a reasonable person would recognise this. As they do not constitute a 'representation' in law or a term, there is no remedy if they turn out to be false”. Whereas it can be reviewed that, the supplied may have exaggerated the quality of the product; thus, the buyer did not pay enough attention to add the terms of misrepresentation over the written contract. Thus, the buyer is only responsible for the terms that are mentioned within the written contract. On the other hand, instead of terminating the commercial contract, Aussie Clothes did an unlawful act and refused to pay for the products after the acceptance of the delivery. In fact, they sold the items to their customers on discount prices. Therefore, Aussie Clothes has breached the express contract by refusing the payment to the