The petition filed before the Manchester District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division, High court of Justice in the case of Foli-8 Limited v. Venton Tool Limited, the particulars of claim essentially refers to the Sales of Good Act, 1979 of England and Wales. In the abovementioned case, the claimant i.e. Foli-8 Limited has sued Venton Tool Limited for breach of Contract under the Senior Courts Act, 1981 herein.
Thus, herein, it can be critically ascertained that, the causation between the losses incurred by the claimant and the breach of contract by the defendant might be too remote to prove in the natural course herein. Although they had an implied clause of adhering to the quality of the goods, it is hard to prove whether the death of the trees has been caused by the use of the defendant’s products or not. Unless and until the claimant raises a thorough forensic report on that specific issue to maintain the possible causation between the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, it shall not fall under section 53 herein.
The second document herein is the statement of defense, filed by the defendant herein i.e. Velton Tool Limited. In the statement of defense herein, the defendant has admitted the presence of an implied qualitative test clause under clause 2 of the Contract herein. Hence, the defendant has admitted the presence of section 13 and 14 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979.
Thus, from the abovementioned discussion, it can be said that the whole point of dispute depends on the practical point whether enough causation exists between the quality of the goods delivered and the losses suffered by the claimant herein due to fault in the merchantable quality of the product. Section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979 essentially demands the causation between these two and the compensation to be received by the claimant shall be dependent on the abovementioned facts herein. Thus, the abovementioned section 35A stated in the document – 1 for the purpose of claiming interests on the damages shall be depended on the abovementioned causation effect herein.
In the case of Saipol SA v. Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWHC 2211, it was mentioned herein the importance of upholding the definition of section 53 in cases of Sales of Goods Act, 1979 in order to ascertain the damages herein.
The third document herein in relation to the abovementioned case of Foli-8 Limited v. Venton Tool Limited, the Witness statement given by Kevin Calculus shall be considered and assessed for the better understanding of the case herein.
Thus, from the abovementioned sections herein, it is to be mentioned that the witness had employed the claimant on December, 2019 and the tenure of the claimant under the witness has not been mentioned whatsoever. It has been mentioned in Document – 1 that the claimant entered into the Contract with Velton Tools Limited on September, 2020 and the same was not delivered to the claimant until 15th September, 2020. Thus, without any conclusive proof on the part of the witness that the tenure of the claimant was of one year or so, both of the information seems to be contradictory. Thus, it can be said that the Witness Statement by Kevil Calculus is not of reliable nature and the disparity in information provided by the witness and the claimant should be taken into consideration. Also, the witness has admitted the fact that he receives an endorsement fee from the Defendant. Thus, the creditability of the witness can be questioned by the court or the claimant herein regarding the quality of the product of the defendant herein. In the case of Excelerate Technology Ltd v Cumberbatch & Ors (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 204 (QB), the question of witness creditability has been essentially reviewed. Although not much scope has been presented for the civil cases or liabilities arising out of civil monetary claims, it can be used by the claimant to discard the abovementioned witness which certainly favors the defendant herein with inconclusive proof herein.
THE CASE OF ANDREW O’FARRELL
Document 4 and document 5 are two parts of one case of arrest on the charge of fraudulent claim of overtime pay committed by a store manager herein. After the store manager was taken into custody for committing fraud, the solicitor on behalf of the accused herein took his statement and statement has been recorded on behalf of the police constable who arrested the abovementioned store manager herein.
From the statement made by Andrew O’Farrell and the police record made by Alan Richards, the working police constable thereon, it can be assessed that Andrew O’Farrell had been accused of a fraud in relation to falsely accumulating overtime pay herein. On one fine evening, the area manager accused Andrew to be of fraud where Andrew admitted the fact that he has not done any overtime for a year in the company and thus, there is no question on his part to log into the overtime pay form herein.
The statement of Andrew O’Farrell essentially refers to the lack of any investigation done on behalf of the company before accusing him of the fraud. The area manager essentially held a private investigation without letting any employee know the nature of the investigation herein and concluded the abovementioned decision without letting the management department or the HR to know anything whatsoever. Also, the area manager worked on his own accord to accuse Andrew of committing a fraud herein under the Fraud Act, 2006 and called the police on him. Afterwards, Andrew was fired from the job herein.
1. The arresting officer must have enough suspicions, either from the behavior of the accused or the environment herein, to believe the fact that the accused has actually committed the abovementioned offence. This is also called the subjective test herein.
2. The arresting officer must have enough suspicion which depends on reasonable grounds herein. This is called the objective test herein.
3. The arresting officer must pass the test of necessity i.e. the arresting officer must have enough reasonable ground to believe that the accused might flee if not arrested right there.
4. As PACE provides the police administrations with a discretionary power to arrest, the arresting officer must have enough grounds to confirm that as well.
Thus, in the case of document – 4, it can be ascertained from the statements of Andrew that the Police officer arrested Andrew without any sufficient grounds as it has been mentioned under section 24 to 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. The statement of Andrew provides us with an impression that he was not trying to flee and he was only accused by the area manager who again refused to conduct a thorough investigation procedure to deduce the accused herein. Thus, it is safe to presume that the arresting officer herein had no reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest Andrew O’Farrell at the store herein. Also, it is to be noted that fraud, being a bailable offence, requires the production of a warrant herein before a person can be arrested if not satisfied the abovementioned grounds mentioned under section 24 to 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.
In reference to Document – 5, where Alan Richard, the arresting officer has recorded the arrest of Andrew O’Farrell and the interview herein to charge him under the fraud of the overtime pay.
In the abovementioned statement records by the arresting officer, it can be seen that only the objective details of the arrest has been mentioned. No conclusive proof or statements have been provided by the arresting officer herein to conclude the arrest of Andrew at the scene herein.
The arresting officer charged Andrew for fraud and took him before the custody officer as soon as the interview was over. Again, he has not mentioned any reasonable grounds to have the suspicion that Andrew committed the crime as it demands from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. From the statement thereof, it is safe to presume that Andrew O’Farrell had been charged with fraud without proper investigation and the preparation of a charge sheet in accordance with the PACE has been skipped.
Thus, from the abovementioned discussion, it can be said that after combining both Document 4 and Document 5 herein, Andrew O’Farrell was wrongfully detained in the police station which violated his rights under the Human Rights Act, article 5 herein i.e. violation of liberty and security of a person. In most of the cases, the police relies on section 24(5)(e) i.e. “prompt arrest was necessary for the purpose of better investigation”, but in this instant document, the same has been mentioned in the police report as well. Hence, it is a clear case of wrongful detention and a wrongful arrest done by the arresting officer, Alan Richard.
In the case of Shaaban Bin Hussein v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942 (P.C), it was held that a “reasonable suspicion shall be more than a hunch and less than a proof”. Thus, the arresting officer must have collected some reasonable suspicion from the surrounding environment to arrest the person under the PACE, 1984.
Also, in the case of Buckley and Others v Chief Officer of the Thames Valley Police, CA 2 Apr [2009], it was held that if the accused herein provides a satisfactory explanation to the arresting officer or provides the arresting officer with some information which might be useful in the investigation of the alleged offence committed by the accused herein, the arresting officer is under a duty to take note of such comments and act upon it. From the statements of Andrew, it can be said that the arresting officer had no regard for the explanations or alibi given by the Andrew. Andrew had a simple alibi that he was with his wife and kids in France herein and thus the police officer is under a duty to check the alibi before convicting him. Although it can be seen from the statement of Andrew that he had previous records of conviction which might be used by the arresting officer to justify the arrest, no such explanation has been recorded by the arresting officer in his statement herein. Thus, it can be safely presumed that Andrew’s arrest was a wrongful detention which is in violation of article 5 of the Human Rights Act.
Take a deeper dive into Best Law Assignment Help Services in the UK with our additional resources.
It is observed that students take pressure to complete their assignments, so in that case, they seek help from Assignment Help, who provides the best and highest-quality Dissertation Help along with the Thesis Help. All the Assignment Help Samples available are accessible to the students quickly and at a minimal cost. You can place your order and experience amazing services.
DISCLAIMER : The assignment help samples available on website are for review and are representative of the exceptional work provided by our assignment writers. These samples are intended to highlight and demonstrate the high level of proficiency and expertise exhibited by our assignment writers in crafting quality assignments. Feel free to use our assignment samples as a guiding resource to enhance your learning.