BUSINESS LAW

Law in Business Context

Law in Business Context

Case Study Part 1

Sam owns a mobile fish and chip van which he regularly parks in a lay-by on the A55 duel carriageway selling fish and chips and soft drinks. One morning he receives a court summons stating that he has been charged with breach of a bylaw which states:-

'It is an offence to operate any mobile premises on the A55 for the sale of burgers, hot dogs or other food. The sale of coffee, tea and other hot drinks is also prohibited.'

Sam tells you 'I only sell fish and chips and coke - they can't touch me!'

Using the rules of statutory interpretation explain to Sam the risks he runs of being convicted of the offence.

Legal Advice to Sam

There are two perspectives to the case which is discussed above. If we see the law in its verbal or literal meaning than Sam is safe since he is not breaching the law which is stated above. Sam is selling fish and chips with soft drinks which are not mentioned in the above stated law. But it we look the law in real sense than the above stated law means sale of any kind of fast food or any mobile activity which causes disturbance to the people who are passing by. The law has to be seen and studied in detail. If the law is for the sake of convenience of public and it is a public law than Sam can be found guilty of breaching the law of state. If the law is to avoid the garbage which can result as a use of fast food then also Sam can be found guilty. Since the law has not only stated that the sale of hot dogs, burgers is prohibited but it has also mentioned that the sale of other food through the operations of mobile premises is also prohibited in the said areas or lay-by i.e. A55. If Sam says that He is only selling fish and chips along with coke which is not mentioned in the law then he is wrong. By no means he can counter the summon of court. If he thinks that the law does not mentioned any soft drink or coke then he can sale it then also he is breaching the law by selling fish and chips at the lay-by A55 (Slorach & Ellis, 2012, P. 75).

I would suggest Sam not to counter summon of court and instead he should go to the hearing of court. The counter with invalid arguments can cause more problems for Sam and he may be charge not only for being guilty of breaching the said law but also of countering the court summon with invalid arguments and wasting the time of court (Rush & Ottley, 2006, P. 12).

Case Study Part 2

Sam has a further problem. He hires his van from a food retail company. As part of the contractual agreement the company is required to fix any mechanical problems the van may ...