Pavarotti Fashions Brand Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Pavarotti Fashions Brand - Case Study Example The paper "Pavarotti Fashions Brand" discovers case with the Brand of Pavarotti Fashions. In the first case, Amanda ordered a pair of jeans from Pavarotti’s mail order catalogue on the 5th of December. She received a notice on the 12th of December that the jeans are no longer available for the advertised price, but for the revised price of J300, introduced on the 8th of December. While Pavarotti offered a complete refund, Amanda refused the offer and insists that Pavarotti sell the merchandise for J250, as advertised. The relevant issue therefore is whether Amanda’s rights were violated as a result of Pavarotti’s refusal to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price; and whether she can compel Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the advertised price. In determining whether Amanda’s rights were violated, one must assess her rights as Pavarotti’s customer, in particular and as a consumer, in general. As Pavarotti’s custom er, Amanda’s rights depend on her contractual relationship with Pavarotti, such that a contract binding the two to specific performance must first exist. However, the courts may find that a contract does not exist. Looking unto Partridge v Crittendon , Pavarotti’s advertisements in the catalogue can be treated as an â€Å"invitation to treat† as opposed to an offer. By ordering, Amanda is simply making an offer. However, in introducing the revised price, Pavarotti makes a counter-offer, which is tantamount to a rejection of Amanda’s offer, ending the current negotiations.... While Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co7 illustrates a contrary situation, where if applied to Amanda's case leads to a valid contract and existing obligations between the two parties8, this application is unlikely. Unlike in Carlill, Pavarotti, through the mail order catalogue did not illustrate a willingness to be bound by the advertisements, such that the company was merely supplying information to prospective customers. The lack of contractual intent on Pavarotti's part makes his advertisements merely an invitation to treat, as opposed to an offer. Furthermore, looking at the nature of Pavarotti's business where the merchandise is always subject to the availability of stock9 and the fact that mail order catalogues are already dated once released, such that it does not reflect price changes made within the company's physical office days after the release; Amanda cannot rely on the catalogue's certainty. Thus, the lack of contractual intent on the part of Pavarotti, and the lack of certainty, as illustrated in the facts given regarding the mail order catalogue, illustrates that no binding contract was formed, such that Amanda cannot hold Pavarotti to sell her the merchandise based on the adver tised price because no contractual relationship or obligation exists between the parties. Insofar as contractual obligations are concerned, Amanda therefore has no claim against Pavarotti. However, as a consumer, she can claim that Pavarotti's action violates her civil rights. Based on the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Pavarotti can be subject to criminal liabilities. Amanda can argue that even though there is no contractual obligation between her and