1.You are asked to consider the legal advice which all concerned might require….

2.You must refer to the Law Acts in order to solve the dispute…………


Polly designs the children clothes and sells them. On merging with Ollie Ltd, a new brand is made by Zak as suggested by Ollie. Besides Polly outsources from Molly and Dolly as they they all run unicorporated business. The new brand that was made was sold to Anu. The dress got damaged while Anu was washing it using the washing machine. It is clear that there exists various contracts in the subject matter: The contract between Dolly, Molly and Polly; contract between Polly and Ollie; contract between Polly, Ollie Liability Ltd and Zak, and contract between Polly and Anu.

Contract to Dolly, Molly and Polly

Polly outsources from Molly and Dolly as her business expanded, the raw materials offered should be of Mechantable quality. According to the Sale of Goods Act, the goods must be fit for the purpose made for. But in these case the parties involved had a common mistake. Both parties assumed the goods were fit for the purpose in Staiman Steel Ltd. V commercial and Home Builders Ltd commercial Home builders bid for steel at an auction with presumption that it had a mixture of new and used steel, when in the case it was only used steel. The court then decided reasonably that the contract was bidding on both parties depending on the agreement and conduct of the parties involved. Therefore Dolly, Molly and Polly contract might depend on the agreement among them concerning the quality of the materials offered.

Contract between Ollie Liabilty Ltd. and Polly

There was a contract between Ollie Liability Ltd and Polly. The clothes designed by Polly are sold through Ollie’s toy shop. Ollie toy shop was at stake for bad image if found selling substandard goods. But in this case, Ollie is the person to blame for the damaged goods since he contracted Zak to make the new brand and the brand turned to be of poor quality. The parties in question should then strike an agreement on how to settle the tainted image on Ollie’s toy shop and the spoilt brand suggested by Ollie and contracted by him.

Contract between Zak and ollie , Polly Ltd

Zak was contracted to make the new brand and in this case was to exercise professionalism for the work assigned. He made a poor quality brand and therefore he was liable to the damged dress. He should be sued by Polly and Ollie Ltd for the cost of dress and the tainted image. In Sodd Corp. V. N. Tessis (Duhaime, 2010)

Tessis purchased furniture that had been mispresented in value in the statements by Sodd Corp, a trustee in bankruptcy. The court ruled in favor of Tessis due to negligence on the part of Sodd Corp in their precontractual agreement. Therefore, Zak is liable to be sued for negligence which is breach of tort.

Contract between Polly and Anu

Polly though placed a statement on the dress about payment for the cost of goods only the client Anu did not read it as it was tiny. This is a mistake on both parties as Polly had a duty to inform Anu to read the instructions and on the other hand Anu had an obligation to ask or look for any conditions attached to the dress before accepting it therefore this stipulates into a common mistake. Anu cannot sue for the cost of derss and the shawl. She can only ask for the damage for cost of goods in Upton V. Tribilcock (1875, U.S.A) it will not be prudent for anyone to enter into a contract and when called upon to react to its commitment alleges that he did not read it when the contract took place. Anu had an obligation to read the instructions.

Similarly there was misrepresentation as Anu did read the standard terms as in Marvco Color Research Ltd. V. Harris(1982)( Rau, Robert, Windhor, Windfohr, 2009)

The defendants signed aloan guarantee failing to read the document first and depending on the word of the loan debtor that they were signing only an adminstrative document that was insignificant. When the they were sued for the debt they pleaded that it wasn’t there action. The court ruled in favor of the bank since it was the carelessness of the defendants to discover the misrepresentation. Therefore Anu has no legal capacity to sue for the cost of dress and the cost of the other garments spoilt during the laundry. She can only sue for the cost of the dress bought .


As mentioned in the various cases above Zak must pay for the damages to Polly and Ollie and Polly to pay for the cost of the dress as in the agreement.Molly, Dolly and Polly can agree on how to settle if they are the ones who provided the raw materials while Zak and Polly having the company in joint ownership will have to bear the costs mutually since it was a common mistake.




Alan Scott Rau, Robert F. Windhor & Anne Burnett Windfohr, Contract Law in the United

States:An Overview, The University of Texas, Austin School of Law (2009).

Lloyd Duhaime, Duhaime’s Contract Law, Permalink, (2010).

Sale of goods(Amendment) Act 1995,U.K


Order with us now….