Online Purchase Dispute Resolution

Summary

In the case of Jamies online purchase, the issue arose from a lack of clarity in specifying the desired item. The seller fulfilled the request based on the description provided, and Jamie should have been more specific to avoid confusion. In Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises (2003), the correct factor not included for awarding restitutionary damages is the difficulty in establishing financial loss. In the scenario involving stolen bikes, the contract is void for illegality due to the subject matter being stolen goods. Understanding these legal principles can help in navigating similar situations.

Full Conversation

Jamie wants to buy a handmade blanket from an online listing with * photos. Jamie asks the seller for “the first green blanket” for £*. The seller agrees, and Jamie pays. When the blanket arrives, it’s not the one Jamie wanted. Jamie thought the first image was a green blanket, but it was actually a tablecloth. The seller sent Jamie the first green blanket in the listing, which was the third image. Which ONE of the following is CORRECT? A) The contract is likely to be void for cross-purpose mistake as the seller and Jamie intended the contract to have different purposes. B) The contract is likely to be void for common mistake because both parties have made the same fundamental mistake. C) The contract is likely to be void for unilateral mistake as Jamie made a mistake about what she was buying. D) There is no mistake here, and Jamie should have been more careful about specifying which blanket she wanted.
D) There is no mistake here, and Jamie should have been more careful about specifying which blanket she wanted.
In this situation, the seller fulfilled Jamie's request based on the description provided. Jamie should have clarified which specific image they were referring to in order to avoid any confusion.
Is there anything else you would like to know or discuss about this situation?
QUESTION * In Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises (*) Lord Justice Peter Gibson set out three factors which underpinned how to decide whether restitutionary damages can be awarded where no financial loss can be proven. Which ONE of the following is not one of those factors? A The breach must be deliberate and for the respondent’s own reward. B The claimant must be able to prove that the case involves exceptional circumstances. C The claimant must have difficult establishing financial loss from the breach. D The claimant must have had a legitimate interest in preventing the respondent’s profit-making activity. LB812 Page * of * © The University of Law Limited *-*
The correct answer is:
C The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach.
Would you like further clarification on this case or any other legal matter?
QUESTION * In Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises (*) Lord Justice Peter Gibson set out three factors which underpinned how to decide whether restitutionary damages can be awarded where no financial loss can be proven. Which ONE of the following is not one of those factors? A The breach must be deliberate and for the respondent’s own reward. B The claimant must be able to prove that the case involves exceptional circumstances. C The claimant must have difficult establishing financial loss from the breach. D The claimant must have had a legitimate interest in preventing the respondent’s profit-making activity. LB812 Page * of * © The University of Law Limited *-*
The correct answer is:
C) The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach.
Would you like further clarification on this case or any other legal matter?
no its asking you which one is not
Got it! Based on the information provided, the correct answer to the question "which one is not one of those factors" is:
C) The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach.
Is there anything else you would like to discuss or need further clarification on?
but it says ''difficult'' so that might be wrong
It seems like you are dealing with a multiple-choice question about the Experience Hendrix v PPX Enterprises (*) case. The question asks which one is NOT a factor set by Lord Justice Peter Gibson for awarding restitutionary damages where no financial loss can be proven.
Here are the factors:
- The breach must be deliberate and for the respondent’s own reward.
- The claimant must be able to prove that the case involves exceptional circumstances.
- The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach.
- The claimant must have had a legitimate interest in preventing the respondent’s profit-making activity.
The correct answer is C: "The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach."
Would you like more information on this case or any other legal issues?
but it doesnt say difficulty it says difficult since that sentence is spelt wrong is it b?
It sounds like you are referring to a nuanced detail in the question's wording. However, the focus should be on the substance rather than the spelling. The correct answer remains C: "The claimant must have difficulty establishing financial loss from the breach." This is the factor that is not part of the criteria.
Would you like to ask about another legal issue?
QUESTION * Maia stole three bikes from outside a local school and listed them for sale online. Anna sees a post online from a local mother warning everyone that the bikes that Maia is selling are stolen and not to buy from her. Knowing the bikes are stolen, Anna decides to buy one from Maia as she hopes it will be cheaper than buying one brand new. When Anna and Maia meet for the sale, Anna only pays half of the money and leaves with the bike. Sonia, the owner of the bike wants it to be returned. Which ONE of the following is CORRECT? A Anna can keep the bike as she did not partake in the illegal act of stealing it herself. B The contract would be void for mistake as Maia did not know that Anna was aware the bike was stolen. C Maia is entitled to the full amount of money for the bike she sold to Anna as they agreed to the price before meeting. D The contract would be void for illegality as the contract is tainted by the subject matter being a stolen good.
The correct answer is:
D) The contract would be void for illegality as the contract is tainted by the subject matter being a stolen good.
Do you need any more information or have another question?