Pavarotti Fashions Brand Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Pavarotti Fashions Brand - scale Study ExampleThe paper Pavarotti Fashions Brand discovers case with the Brand of Pavarotti Fashions. In the first case, Amanda ordered a pair of jeans from Pavarottis ring mail order sort on the 5th of December. She received a let on on the 12th of December that the jeans atomic number 18 no longer available for the advertised damage, but for the revise price of J300, introduced on the 8th of December. While Pavarotti offered a complete refund, Amanda refused the offer and insists that Pavarotti transfer the merchandise for J250, as advertised. The relevant issue therefore is whether Amandas rights were violated as a result of Pavarottis refusal to sell her the merchandise ground on the advertised price and whether she depose compel Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price. In determining whether Amandas rights were violated, one essential assess her rights as Pavarottis customer, in particular and as a consumer, i n general. As Pavarottis customer, Amandas rights depend on her reduceual relationship with Pavarotti, such that a contract binding the two to specific performance must first exist. However, the courts may find that a contract does not exist. Looking unto Partridge v Crittendon , Pavarottis advertisements in the catalogue can be treated as an invitation to treat as oppose to an offer. By ordering, Amanda is simply making an offer. However, in introducing the revised price, Pavarotti makes a counter-offer, which is tantamount to a rejection of Amandas offer, ending the menstruum negotiations.... While Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co7 illustrates a contrary situation, where if applied to Amandas case leads to a valid contract and existing obligations between the two parties8, this application is unlikely. Unlike in Carlill, Pavarotti, through the mail order catalogue did not illustrate a willingness to be bound by the advertisements, such that the company was merely give informa tion to prospective customers. The lack of contractual intent on Pavarottis part makes his advertisements merely an invitation to treat, as opposed to an offer. Furthermore, looking at the nature of Pavarottis business where the merchandise is always subject to the availability of stock9 and the fact that mail order catalogues are already dated once released, such that it does not reflect price changes do within the companys physical office days after the release Amanda cannot rely on the catalogues certainty. Thus, the lack of contractual intent on the part of Pavarotti, and the lack of certainty, as illustrated in the facts given regarding the mail order catalogue, illustrates that no binding contract was formed, such that Amanda cannot hold Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price because no contractual relationship or obligation exists between the parties. Insofar as contractual obligations are concerned, Amanda therefore has no claim against Pavarott i. However, as a consumer, she can claim that Pavarottis action violates her civil rights. ground on the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Pavarotti can be subject to criminal liabilities. Amanda can argue that even though there is no contractual obligation between her and