Federal and state laws are formulated to ensure honesty and fairness prevail in the market place. Sellers have no authority to take undue advantage of willing buyers while on the other hand; buyers are not permitted under law to back out of a concluded sale without justifiable reasons. Consumer protection laws are part of the larger law of contracts which accord both sellers and buyers definite rights in the market place. The buyer’s right to return goods purchased or rescind on transactions is dependent on state legislation on consumer protection laws.
In the case of the Presley’s against Electric Avenue, Ikea and PT, the courts have to consider the issues raised by Priscilla. For Ikea, the courts have to determine the state of the chair and whether it was being used in the prescribed manner. For PT, there is no case to answer as the contract had already been duly concluded and Priscilla’s negligence resulted in her injury. For Electric Avenue, the terms of the shipping contract contracts have to be delved into to determine whether the delivery service is liable for breach or it is Electric Avenue’s responsibility to ensure Priscilla gets the merchandise in good condition.
In the case against Jennifer, the Presley’s are protected by the fundamental rule of consumer transactions which underscores the fact that goods sold should be free from high pressure selling practices. The house purchased was not of the color desired, was termite infested and had a leaking roof. In this case the buyers can sue Jennifer for damages.
In Big Boss Bank against the Presley’s the contract becomes illegal after the purpose of the contract becomes frustrated. In Roy suing Elvis for breach of contract, the courts cannot consider such a case as real estate contracts have to be written and not oral contracts. In Elvis versus IMOHC, Elvis can go ahead and call for the renunciation of the contract as well as sue for damages. This is because IMOHC fails to perform obligations as under the agreed upon contract. In Hank versus Elvis, depending on the state legislation under which the contract entered upon is in jurisdiction, Elvis is accorded a time frame within which he can decide on cancelling certain types of contract. It the courts decide that Elvis acted within the time frame in relevance to the type of contract, then Hank cannot sue him for breach of contract.
In Green Grass of Home versus Elvis, the express oral agreement between the manager at Green Grass of Home and Elvis protects Elvis from any lawsuit initiated by the pro-golf store. The oral agreement expressly states that if the golf clubs performed to the expectations of Elvis, he was to pay for them. As they did not, Elvis is not obligated to pay for them.
In Mrs. Perkin’s versus Wonderful Life Insurance, Mrs. Perkins can sue the company for the insurance proceeds in a court of law and claim full damages. In IMOHC versus BSE, IMOHC can also sue BSE for damages accruing from attempts to frustrate the contract entered into with Elvis. In ALT versus Ricky and his parents, the hospital can sue the family for failure to pay for services rendered to them. In WNMB versus James, the company has the right to sue him and for AZ Mastercard versus the Presley’s, the defendants are protected by the bankruptcy laws. In Priscilla versus PMC, PMC is bound to pay the plaintiff full damages for misrepresenting the nature of the goods in question.