EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is a case study about people involved in various business relations. In the very
start there is a little girl named Naheed who is just five years old. She is a minor so no
claims can be made against her in any case. Mr. Arif, Naheed’s father, is involved in
many business transactions. He is trying to sell his scooter for which he has made
certain statements that may or may not be true. If Mr. Arif is knowingly
misrepresenting the model of the scooter then it is a fraud and claims can be made
against him.
Mr. Arif has been previously engaged win business dealings with a local market
merchant but this time Mr. Arif refused to honor his promise of delivering certain
merchandise which is a beach of contract and Mr. Arif can be sued for it.
Mr. Arif had a special paint job contract with Mrs. Khan that he had carried out at her
designer’s outlet. She demanded her money back along with damages. As Mr. Arif did
not performed the work according to the contract hence claims can be made against
him.
Mr. Arif went to the paint store and informed the proprietor about the bad quality of
paint. Mr. Arif has relied upon the proprietor’s skill and the proprietor has knowingly
concealed the defects in the paint, so Mr. Arif can make charges against him.

1
 CASE STUDY

1. Claims against Naheed for unpaid price of crisps.

The claims against Naheed for unpaid price of crisps would not be successful she is a
minor. According to the law “A minor is a person who has not completed 18 years of
age”. Whereas naheed is just 5 years old.

A person can only recover reasonable value of the goods if he has supplied
necessaries to a minor. Since crisps are not necessaries therefore Naheed is not liable
to pay for them.

2. Claims against Mr. Arif for statements as to: model, speed, paint,
(scooter sale).

Model: Here if Mr. Arif is knowingly making false statement by saying that it is a
1967 model then it is a fraud, because the registration papers have been misplaced. In
this case claims against Mr. Arif can be successful. The other party may avoid the
contract and sue for damages.

Speed: Mr. Arif’s statement that it can go s fast as a bullet was not a statement of fact,
and the other party has not relied upon it, therefore, no claims can be made in this
matter.

Paint: Mr. Arif was quite sure about the originality of the paint. The other party can
discover it with ordinary diligence whether the paint is original or not. So in my
opinion no claims can be made in this case as well.

2
3. Claims against Mr. Arif for informing the local merchant about
not honoring the contract.

Claims against Mr. Arif for informing the local merchant about not hiniring the
contract can be successful as Mr. Arif has made a breach of contract.
“This is an expressed breach because Mr. Arif has communicated with the other
party, his intention not to perform the contract, before the date of performance has
arrived”.
The merchant is excused from performance and may sue Mr. Arif for damages.

4. Claims against Mr. Arif for the special paint job (action for
breach of paint job contract and price of damaged dresses).

As Mr. Arif did not perform the job well and did not followed the instructions given
by Mrs. Khan, therefore, it is a breach of contract and claims can be made against Mr.
Arif.
Mrs. Khan may claim for ordinary damages.

5. Claims against the proprietor:

i. For the price of paint.

Claims can be made against the proprietor for the price of paint because the paint
Was not of merchantable quality and had hidden defects.

ii. Statement as to quality of paint.

The paint also did not fulfill the condition as to fitness or quality and hence claims

3
 can be successful against the proprietor. This is because Mr. Arif has relied upon the
proprietor’s skill and bought that paint.

iii. Notice excluding certain liabilities.

The seller made wrong statement intentionally about the quality of paint and Mr. Arif
has relied on it. The seller concealed the defects in the paint as he knew about its bad
quality.
Acoording to law (sec.17 of contract act), the proprietor has made wrong statement,
Mr. arif has relied on it and the proprietor’s activity has concealed the defects in the
Paint. In this case the principle of Caveat Emptor does not apply and the notice
Excluding certain liabilities does not work for the proprietor here. Hence claims can
be successful against the proptietor.

iv. Dmages claimed my Mrs. Khan from Mr. Arif for the paint job and dresses.
The paint job contract was made between Mrs. Khan and Mr. Arif. The store proprietor
was not a party to the contract. Hence all the claims that Mrs. Khan can make would be
against Mr. Arif and not the store proprietor.