Application of the Law

Based upon the information set before us in this case, we would make the following observations: – 1)    It is apparent that Bob, together with managers of ABC, are extending their collection of music CD’s by making copies and exchanging these copies. In our opinion, such copying represents a direct infringement of the Copyright Act 1986, and its subsequent amendments. 2)    In view of the fact that ABC is an educational corporation, we feel that they would be able to successfully defend any claim against them for contributory infringement on the grounds of “fair use.

” This could be further supported by the fact that, we assume, there would be a policy of non-infringement in force within the business. 3)     In our opinion, an incidence of vicarious liability has occurred against ABC. This is based upon the fact, as Bob and the office managers are employees of ABC, the company can reasonably have been expected to have been aware that the action taken by its employees were copyright infringements.

4)    If it is proven that any of the corporation’s officers involved with the infringement are amongst those seconded from Alphabet, which holds at least a majority interest in ABC, our opinion is that successor liability would apply. The fact that Alphabet is in a separate state would not absolve them from liability, as the Paris Convention would apply. Conclusion Based upon the above findings we would advise Big Bucks that their clients copyright has been infringed. For the reasons cited previously, Bob and the managers are directly responsible for this copyright infringement.

Similarly, we would advise that ABC has a vicarious liability under the terms of the Copyright Act. Furthermore, we would advise that Alphabet has a responsibility under the provisions of successor liability and can be joined in any action by the application of the provisions of the international Paris Convention, particularly if it is proven that any of the managers involved were seconded from Alphabet. Question 2 Exporter, located in state C, has entered into a contract to supply 50,000 cases of chocolate biscuits to Importer, located in state F.

This contract came into being as a result of Wholesaler stating that the seller (Exporter), in which it has a 51% shareholding, to the buyer, was the only supplier in state C, despite the fact that similar products could be purchased from other sellers in the state. Delivery of the goods is to be made to Ship and Rail Limited, also located in state F. Exporter effects delivery to Ship and Rail Limited. However, Exporters agent forgets to arrange the export documents.

A derailment occurred 10 km from Importers location, damaging some of the goods and the police advise the company to arrange collection. Customs, being notified, demand copies of all export and import documentation from Importer. However, Importer had been unaware of a directive, enacted six months before the date the contract was made, prohibiting the importing of any chocolate products into state F. We have been approached by Importers to advise upon its rights and liabilities arising from this contract and subsequent incidents.

Relevant laws. To enable us to give advice in this case we need to review three relevant areas of law. The first concerns misrepresentation. Misrepresentation is the act of presenting something to be true when it is known, or should reasonably have been known that it is not. Chapter 7 of the Misrepresentation Act (1967) states that, where a contract has been entered into because of such a misrepresentation, the party against whom such a misrepresentation may avoid the contract, and is entitled to claim damages as a result.

This can only be defended if the offending can prove that, at the time of making the statement, it was true or they could have reasonably be expected to have believed that it was true at that time. Secondly, we need to the Vienna convention relating to the contract for the international sale of goods act . The Vienna Convention came into force on the first day of January 1998 (DeMatteo et. al 2005) and was presented to member countries for ratification. During the intervening years, a number of nations have signed up to the Convention.