(Solved by Humans)-Minimum 600 words (Signature bind) To think about when writing:

Paper Details

Minimum 600 words (Signature bind)

To think about when writing:

1. Issue
2. Law
3. Application of the law
4. Conclusion

Badul?did not read the small writings on the order form (contract) before he signed it.	Signature?binds: It's immaterial whether or not?Badul?has read the writings after he has signed the contract. He should have read it thoroughly and made it clear with Stephen before he signs the contract. Now?Badul?is the one to blame. (S Pearson & Son Ltd v Dublin Corp [1907] AC 351)
Badul?has signed the order form (contract).	Signature binds: A person is bound to whatever he/she is signed. (L'Estrange v Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394)

Law and business decisions
Question 1
On 19 April 2014, Badul went to the salesroom of Portal Computers Limited
(?PCL?) where a PCL salesman named Stephen Chang attended to him. Badul told
Stephen that he needed a computer for his wife. Badul explained to Stephen that as
both, he (Badul) and his wife, were computer illiterate, he would not even ask the
price of the computer unless it came with after-sales service that included repairs to
the computer at his home if and when these were necessary. Stephen told Badul that
there was a ?Portal? brand computer that came with a package just for people in his
situation. He said that with that computer, Badul could purchase a ?3-year on-site total
warranty?. Stephen explained to Badul that if repairs were needed during the currency
of the 3-year on-site warranty, these would be effected by the PCL?s staff in Badul?s
home. Stephen clarified that during the life of the 3-year on site warranty, the
purchaser would not be charged for parts or labor or transport. Badul was informed
that to avail himself of the 3-year on-site total warranty, all he needed to do was call a
designated phone number and the PCL?s Technical Support Services Division
(?PCLSSD?) would swing into action. (All of Stephen?s statements regarding the 3year on-site total warranty are hereafter referred to collectively as ?Stephen?s
promise?).
Badul was very happy and agreed to purchase a Portal computer for $17,200 and
the 3-year on-site total warranty for another $3,288. Stephen then prepared what he
termed an ?an order form?. The order form listed the specifications of the computer,
the total cost thereof ($17,200) and incorporated the following item, ?3-year on-site
total warranty -- $3,288?. Badul signed the order form and was told that the computer
would be delivered to his house within the week. No document relating to the 3-year
on-site total warranty was shown to Badul before he signed the order form. The
agreement between the parties was made, and the order form signed, on 19 November
2014. The computer was delivered to Badul?s house on 25 April 2014. The reverse of
the Order Form contained writing in small print but Badul did not read it.
On or about 2 September 2015, the computer stopped working. (Badul?s son, an
undergraduate who has taken a course in computers and in Business Law, diagnosed it
as suffering from both, hardware and software problems). On 9 September 2015,
Badul established telephone contact with a member of the PCLTSSD. The latter took
the position that the on-site warranty came into effect only after the Badul had helped
him perform he termed ?a simple telephone diagnostic? per his instructions over the
phone. Badul refused to do this as it was not a term made known to him by Mr.
Stephen when he sold him (Badul) the ?3-year on-site total warranty?.
Through this telephone conversation with the PCLTSD, Badul also became
aware for the first time that the 3-year on-site total warranty covered only hardware
(and excluded software). As he had not been informed at the time that he purchased it,
that the 3-year on-site warranty was limited to the hardware, Badul rejected this
attempt to limit the scope of the warranty. The PCLTSD representative, however,
quoted various paragraphs from the PCL Warranty booklet that limited the warranty.
However, the PCL Guarantee Booklet had been delivered together with the Portal
computer on 25 April 2014, 6 days after Badul had entered into the contract to
purchase the computer and the 3-year on-site warranty. On the advice of his son,
Badul took the position that the Guarantee Booklet was an irrelevant post-contractual
1

stipulation as his attention had not been drawn to it at the time the contract had been
made or earlier. Also on the advice of his son, Badul contends that Stephen (PCL?s
employee and/or agent) had induced him to enter into the contract to purchase the 3year on-site warranty by misrepresenting its terms to him.
On the 23 November 2015, Badul was forced to have the computer repaired by
Macellent Computer Services Limited. Badul paid $2,150 for the repairs.
Badul wrote to PCL informing it that by reason of its breach of the terms of the 3-year
on-site total warranty, he wished to terminate it and to recover the $3,288 that he had
paid for it. He also wanted PCL to reimburse him the $2,150 that he had to pay to
Macellent Computer Services Limited to repair the computer.
PCL has rejected Badul?s claim on the following grounds:
(a) The contract between the parties was contained in the ?Order Form? dated 19
April 2014. As Stephen?s promise (assuming it had actually been made) had
NOT been included in it, Badul was precluded by the parol evidence rule from
relying on the same and that Stephen?s promise was, in any event, not a term
of contract but only a representation that was not incorporated into the
contract.
(b) That PCL?s Warranty Booklet did not amount to a post-contractual stipulation,
in the 21st century, nobody could reasonably expect to purchase a warranty that
was not accompanied by a document (such as the PCL Warranty Booklet)
defining its scope;
(c) That the contract for the purchase of the 3-year on-site warranty was not
vitiated by misrepresentation.
(d) The reverse of the Order Form contained what it labeled, ?Additional Terms
and Conditions of Sale?. One of these read ?This Order Form and the
associated written documents contain all the terms and conditions under which
I agree to purchase the machine described overleaf and any express or implied
condition, statement or warranty statutory or otherwise not stated in writing is
hereby excluded?.
INSTRUCTIONS
EITHER:
Explain to PCL the legal issues which arise in the above scenario and advise it as to
whether it can successfully resist a suit by Badul.

2



Solution details: