Differences Between Criminal Law and Civil Law

...

They also reduce the cost and delay than litigation. There was a simplified terminology introduced to make the court user friendly also.

Parties are also encouraged to Co-operate with each other to identify the issues in the dispute early, to fix the time table, control the process of the case and to see if the benefits of a particular method of hearing the case would justify the cost.

Also judges have various powers to encourage early settlements of cases whenever it was possible. Penalties can be imposed on parties acting unreasonably or breeching C.P.R’s

In conclusion the differences between Civil Law and Criminal law are: it is sometimes thought that Criminal law s more important in maintaining social order but it is arguable that in reality the reverse is the case.

For the most part people come into contact with the Criminal law infrequently whereas everyone is continuously involved with civil law even if it is only the use of Contract law to make some purchase. However, both Criminal and Civil laws have their own distinct legal systems.

Scenario 2

This question involves the discussion of exclusion clauses and poses the possible problem of the contract being befoul with illegality. It must be assumed that the accident was caused by defective brakes in the car which existed at the time of the sale.

The statement of the specific car Karen manages to undertake have no liability for the condition of the car it is an uncommon, hash and onerous clause and there is no authority that such a clause to be effective, Karen should have maintain special measures to bring it to Dominic attention,

Spurling v Bradshaw (1956)

Interphoto Picture Library v Stilletto Visual Programme Ltd (1988)

Though the clauses of the sale agreement appeared large enough, they have constituted reasonable notice to Dominic. They also appeared in the agreement which Dominic signed, this is sufficient to have incorporated the clauses.

L’Estrange V Graucob (1934)

The descriptions of the car appear to be sales talk, a mere illusion and therefore have no legal repercussions. There is some doubt about this because Karen is a car dealer and in Andrews v Hopkinson (1957) Karen should have told Dominic that there would be no trouble with the vehicle.

The breach of contract here is of the term implied by S14 (2) Sale of Goods Act 1979 – S.G.A (1979) that the goods are of satisfactory quality. This section applies because Karen is a seller in the course of business.

This provision is not excluded by S14 2 (c) (b) because despite the fact Dominic examined the car, there is no indication that the examination was not done properly to show the brakes were effective.

There was a fundamental breach of contract and the question whether the exclusion clauses applied to that breach is one of true construction.

Suisse Atlantique Societe D’ Armament Marine V Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967)

Even though Dominic is a consumer as defined in S12 (1) of the Act, at common law the exclusion clauses were incorporated do not exist in the UCTA 1977.

As against a person dealing as a consumer liability for obligation arising from SGA 1979 cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract terms: S6 (2) UCTA 1977, the no statement clauses are somewhat puzzling. There are presumably intended to exclude liability for misrepresentation there does not appear to have any representation apart from the puff condition notice which has already been decided was more sale talk.

By virtue of S3 misrepresentation Act 1967 as amended by S8 UCTA the exclusion clause for liability for misrepresentation would have no effect unless it satisfied the requirement of reasonableness set out in S11 (1) UCTA, the two clauses would not satisfy this requirement because they falsely pretended to exclude all forms of misrepresentation including fraudulent misrepresentation.

Thomas Witter Ltd V TBP Industries (1996)

The exclusion clauses would also be regarded as unfair terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999). Dominic therefore has acclaimed for the lost of his car.

What is the position of the injured footballers?

They are third party and have no claim in contract against Karen; there is nothing to suggest that Dominic was acting like an agent.

In Wooder Investment Development Ltd V Wimpey Construction (UK) Ltd (1980) the house adhered that constructing parties could not sue for any third party loss disapproving lord Dennings view in Jackson V Horizon Holdings Ltd (1975).

The position is not changed by the contract rights of third party Act 1999.

Considering Kareem Karen said that she would consider the payment by cheque and if he does not hear from her within 48 hours it would be a deal she thinks.

Although she continues to keep the offer open until he returns however; it is Trite law that an offer can be void at any time before acceptance Routledge V Grant (1828).

In the absence of consideration a promise to keep the offer open could not be enforced, when Dominic offered £4,300 it was a counter offer ruin the original offer of £4,500 the authority is Hyde V Wrench (1840).Once Karen is contented it would not overrule the offer Stevenson V Mc Lean (1880).

Liability for the breach off implied terms of S14 (2) SGA 1979 cannot be excluded in a consumer sale. The above Act applies to Karen; goods must be of satisfying quality unlike her car.

In Andrew V Hopkinson (1957) it was also stated that there should be a precise statement by Karen, which she failed to give for the condition of the car,

The Exclusion clause will not be incorporated into a contract except the affected party as Dominic was given sufficient notice of it.

The notice must be tolerable for the average person to be aware of it:

Thompson V M and S Railway (1931)

The notice was not sufficient for him to understand the puffs of the description of the car; because Dominic seems to be an average person therefore In Parking Ltd (1971) it was stated the greater the exemption the greater degree of notice is required.

Sumakan