LAW 200.

20 MID Assignment
Name: Md. Nahian Kabir Pranto
ID: 2111214630
Group: C

Answer to the Ques No-1

In the given passage, Joy can sue PC Planet, because of Sale of Goods Act 1930,
Section 15. In the passage, Joy bought a computer from PC Planet. The assistant
there recommended him a software package, Macrofirm Doorways and used the
word “Original” but later Joy found out that the software wasn’t original version
and that software rendered the computer irreparable. SOGA 1930, Section 15 says
that goods must be same as the description. Here, the assistant at PC Planet,
described the Macrofirm software that they installed in Joy’s computer as original
version but it was not. By providing Joy with a product different from their given
description PC Planet has violated Sale of Goods Act 1930, Section 15. Joy relied
on the assistant’s skills to provide him the best product which the assistant has
failed to do, this violated SOGA 1930, Section 16(2), which says that there is no
obligation on the buyer to examine the goods and can rely on seller’s skill. So, Joy
can also sure PC Planet for this violation of law. Also, I would also advice Joy to
read contracts before signing because Joy had signed a form without reading at
cash desk, which stated that PC Planet would accept no liability for the quality of
their computers and software. If he hadn’t signed that form then he would have
been able to sue PC planet according to SOGA 1930, Section 16(2), which would
have made PC Planet responsible for the quality of their goods.

Answer to the Ques No-2

(a) Sayerah is mother of twin sons, so BLA 2006 is not applicable for her.
(b) The employer is right in not paying Sayerah for the maternity leave.
Because according to BLA 2006, Section 46(2), a pregnant employee is not
entitled to maternity benefit if she has had at least 2 children before. And
Sayerah is already a mother of twin sons, which makes her inapplicable for
the maternity benefit of BLA 2006.
(c) The procedure of dismissal:
1. Recorded allegation against the employee.
 2. A written allegation copy given to the employee and less than 7 days’
time to explain.
3. Found guilty after a fair enquiry.
4. Punishment with the approval of the employer.
(d) An employee can terminate his employment contract instantly by paying
employer 60 days wage. Sayerah’s gross salary is 11,000 Taka per month. If
Sayerah were to resign then she has to 60 days wage to her employer, which
will be (11,000*2) = 22,000 Taka.
(e) Separation benefit is a compensation, which an employee receives after
separation. An employee must complete at least 1-year service in order to
receive separation benefit. Separated benefit is the amount of 30 days wages
for one complete year. Sayerah worked in her factory for 3 years from July
2017 but she enjoyed unpaid maternity leave for 4 months, as a result she
worked for less than 2 and half years. As a result, Sayerah will get
compensation of 1-month salary for each completed year. So, Sayerah will
receive separation benefit of (11,000*2) = 22,000 Taka.

Answer to the Ques No-3

From a thorough analysis of the given circumstances, I can see the Postal rule
applied here. Karina advertises in a Newspaper to sell her unique pieces of
Japanese pottery for £500 on Monday. Shahida, a potential buyer approached
Karina through letter and countered her offer for £430 on Monday. On
Wednesday, Karina then countered her counter offer through and told Shahida that
she would accept £450 and if she is interested then notify her by Saturday. Now,
Salman posted another letter offering £440 on Tuesday, which Karina accepted
and told Salman to deliver her the money by Friday. Now, on Thursday, Shahida
posted another letter accepting Karina’s £450 counter offer. Now, according to the
postal rule, Acceptance letter is effective immediately after it is posted. As a
result, legally Shahida’s £450 offer is accepted by Karina. However, after realising
that Shahida doesn’t have the fund to pay Karina, Shahida immediately posts
another letter revoking her acceptance letter but unfortunately the letter got lost in
the post office and will not reach to Karina. Shahida also tried to calling Karina
but she didn’t pick up her call. Now, according to the postal rule, for an offer to be
revoked, the revocation letter has to be delivered before it can become effective.
So, Shahida’s revocation letter won’t be effective. Then Salman sent the money
for his accepted £440 offer through his friend Kamal but he missed his train but
reached Karina’s house on Friday evening but Karina wasn’t at home, so, he
dropped the money in the letterbox. Karina came home on Saturday and found
both Shahida’s acceptance letter and Salman’s money.
Here, Salman’s offer will not be accepted because he didn’t used the same
medium as Karina, which is an important condition in the postal rule. Shahida’s
offer was accepted. Shahida tried to revoke her offer but her letter got lost. For
now, legally Shahida should get the advertised product.