BUSINESS LAW COURSE WORK TWO

GROUP H

NAME REG. NO STUDENTS .NO SIGNATURE

MUJAASI LAWRENCE 23/U/0831 2300700831
KIBAALE SHADRACK 23/U/09695/PS 2300709695
ARTHUR
KAWEESA JAZIRAH 23/U/0553 2300700553
MUTUMBA BRIAN 23/U/25333/EVE 2300725333
SSENDAGIRE HAIRA 23/U/24642 2300724642
SUDHIR BIN SAIDI 23/U/22583 2300722583
NAKIYEMBA GRACE 23/U/13883/EVE 2300713883
FELISTA
OPIO LEVITE ASINGUZA 23/U/06719/EVE 2300706719
KIRABO MEDDIE 23/U/09921/PS 2300709921

Case 1 , Ezra and bagezi agreed to have a road test for the red Mercedes Benz before payment. Case 2,
Ezra purchased a car from bagezi motor company and they signed a contract .Case 3 , Catherine ordered
for 1000 green wool sweaters from Kato’s shop Case 4, Camilla paid Catherine ugx 1m for purchase of a
phone. Case 5, Ezra paid Singh 5m shs cash for purchase of a Bajaj TX .

Parties , Camilla vs. Bagezi, Ezra vs. Bagezi motor company, Kato vs. Catherine, and Ezra vs. Singh.

Law applicable, Sale of goods, Contract law ,

Issue case1, whether Camilla had to pay the full price, case 2, whether there was breach of contract
between Ezra and bagezi, case3, whether Kato had to demand for full payment from Catherine , case 4,
whether there was a mistake of fault by both parties , case5 , whether Ezra had to sue Singh.

Resolution of the issues

1 In case 1 ( Camilla vs Bagezi)

Issue 1 whether Camilla had a right to examine the car.

Issue 2 ,whether Camilla bears the loss and has to pay the full price.

Resolution of issue 1

In reference to section 42 of the Act, the buyer has a right of examining the goods. The buyer has a right
to examine the goods whether they have been delivered and it shall not be taken to have accepted
them until he/she has a reasonable opportunity of examining the goods. And therefore, in relation to
the above facts , Camilla had a right of examining the car which was done.

Resolution of issue 2.

In reference to section 27 of the sale of goods and supply of service act, risk passes with property unless
agreed otherwise. The goods remain at the sellers risk until the property is transferred to the buyer.

The risk of loss passes with property and property in goods passes to the buyer immediately at the time
of execution of the contract. However, in relation to the above facts , there was a convent that the price
was to be rendered after the road test and therefore this implies that the contract had not yet been
executed and the property in the car had not yet been transferred . the risk was still at the sellers hand
since the property had not yet been passed which takes us back to the general rule and therefore,
Bagezi will bear the loss or damage caused.

IN CASE 2 (EZRA VS BAGEZI )

Issue 1 ; Whether Ezra can sue Bagezi basing on the provision in the contract.

Resolution of the issue

The exclusion clause should be brought to the attention of the other party during and before the
contract. Section 19 of the sale of goods act of 2017 provides express terms not negative implied terms
under this act. This implies that the term in your contract should not contradict with what the act
provides for. Whether there is a fundamental breach, it’s a breach which goes to the root and its not
equivalent to the non-performance of the act.

In reference to the case of karsaler vs. wallis of 1956, where the issue in this case was whether the
exclusion clause was valid even in case where there was a fundamental breach of the contract. Court
held that karsaler was under an obligation to provide a car which is substantially in the same condition
as when Mr. Wallis inspected it. Therefore, in relation to the above facts at hand , Bagezi motor
company has an obligation to deliver a car in the same condition as it was examined which means Ezra
can sue Bagezi.

IN CASE 3 (KATO VS CATHERINE)

Issue1 ;whether Kato has to demand for the payment .

Resolution of the issue

In relation to the sale of goods act , aseller has a duty to deliver goods which comfirm to the sample
description. Under section 14 odf the sale of goods act which provides for a sale by descriprition where
there is an implied condition that the goods shall correspond with the description and where the sale is
by sample as well as description isn’t sufficient that the bulk of goods correspond the sample that if the
goods don’t also correspond with the description. In reletion to the above act , Kato delivered goods
which differ so much from the sample and description given and thus cant demand for payment

In relation to the case of H.R.MOCH Company VS RENSSEALAER Water company , in this case Renseelear
water company contacted with MOCH company to provide a pumping station that would pump water
from the river to the city of Troy New york . However the pumping station that ws delivered was not
capable of delivering the promised water capacity .the court held that this was a breach of contract and
RENSEALAER water company was liable for the damages

Therefore Kato does not have the right to demand for payment from Catherine because he delivered
goods not In line with sample.

IN CASE 4( KAMILA VS CATHERINE)

Issue 1; Whether there was a mistake of fault by both parties.

RESOLUTION OF THE CASE

A mistake in contract law is an error of confronting that certain facts are true . There are three types of
mistakes which include; Common mistakes where both parties are mistaken about the same thing.
Mutual mistake where both parties are mistaken about different things in the contract. And Unilateral
mistakes when one party is mistaken and the other party should have known about the mistake.
However for the court to render a contract owned the mistake should be of fault not law.

Section 17 of the sale of goods act 2010 provides that for a mistake of fact where both parties to an
agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of facts which is to agreement.

Section 18 of the contract act 2010, mistake of the contract act 2010, mistake of law is where a contract
is entered into as a mistake in respect to any law and therefore in Uganda the contract is void. Therefore
in relation to the above facts the parties operated under a mutual mistakes as both parties were
mistaken about different things within the contract and the contract was rendered void.

IN CASE 5 ( EZRA VS BAGEZI)

In reference to section 5(1) of the sale of goods and supply of service Act provides that a contract of
sale may be made in writing , partly in writing, by word of mouth or by word of mouth. A contact that
exceeds ugx 500,000 must be made in writing and its important to note that it would be in the interest
of the parties to have a written contract especially taking into account what is at stake. Otherwise incase
of a dispute, the terms agreed upon may be difficult to prove. According to the above case there was no
written contract which implies that Singh had a right to resale the motorcycle since ownership was still
at his hand.