Business Law and Ethics Tower Flours

Question: Discuss about the Business Law and Ethicsfor Tower Flours. Answer: Introduction In this case Mikaela is the owner of a cake shop and the ingredients come to her shop is from Tower Flours. The owner of Tower Flours is Ricky. Before ordering flour from Tower Flours, Mikaela confirmed that whether the flour is gluten-free or not because the flour with gluten may cause problem to health and the customer of Mikaelas shop had demand of gluten-free cake. An online contract has taken place between Mikaela and Ricky, the owner of Tower Flours but in the online contract the terms were not described. Verbal contract or oral contract has been occurred between Ricky, the owner of Tower Flours and Mikaela, the owner of a cake shop[1]. It is necessary that while among a contract between two parties, the terms and conditions should be written in the legal contract but in this case oral contract took place where it was assured that the flour will be gluten-free but in the online contract that term was not written. So it can be ethically said that there is an implied contract where terms are discussed orally by in an expressive or clear way, it is not discussed in any contract document or online contract that the flour will be gluten-free. An implied contract took place between Mikaela and Ricky (Tower Flours) that almond flour will be gluten-free[2]. Generally there are some principles of business law that while forming any contract or agreement between two parties, it is important that the terms and conditions should be clearly stated in a written way, so that no one can breach nay of the terms and breaching the contract may ask penalty from the guilty party by the innocent party. In a common law of Australia while doing contract some of the rules are needed to be appropriately stated[3]. It is necessary that in the agreement or deal of Mikaela and Tower Flours (Ricky) it was needed to be stated in the online agreement that the flour must be gluten free which was not done. The agreement was discussed in an implied term and the type of the contract was written type between Mikaela and Tower Flours (Ricky). For the wedding ceremony of Dan and Jacob an order was taken by Mikaela. Dan and Jacob ordered for an almond four cake but they have not mentioned that they need gluten free cake as Dan has coelic disease which can herm her. So in this case, order was given but in order any instructions were not mentioned and even it was not mentioned that the cake has to be gluten free. So in this case any implied contract has not took place between Mikaela and Dan and Jacob[4]. According to common law of Australia, as Fan and Jacob has not ordered for a gluten-free cake so they can neither sue Mikaela and nor can breach the contract between them. Exclusion occurs in this place because when the cake in the shop of Mikaela is sold in market it is sold by saying that the flour through which the cake is made is gluten free. In this case people are falsified or victim of misleading by her. Even Mikaela is misleaded or cheated by Tower Flours, who assured her that, the four which they are selling are gluten free. Mikaela is affected by Misrepresentation Act of 1972. In case of this act if any false statement is given to someone then it is known as misrepresentation act which is the case of misleading[5]. In this scenario Tower Flours can be sued by Mikaela according to section 2 of Misrepresentation Act of 1972. As implied tem of the contract is breached so Mikaela can sue Tower Flours for misleading the oral contract. In case of Dan and Jacob, they have ordered cake by knowing that gluten free cake is available with Mikaela. So in this case Dan and Jacob cannot directly sue Mikaela but they may claim on the quality of the product which is available with him[6]. There is a reputation of Mikaela that he sells gluten free good bakery products but consumers are not satisfied with his product as Dan has felt some reactions after eating the cake made by her. In this case as contract has not been made so they directly cannot sue her but according to Australian Consumer Rights Act 2011, Dan and Jacob can ask back for the refund from Mikaela[7]. As per Consumer Rights Act the customer can claim of the quality of the product[8]. So in this Mikaela cannot be sue but can ask monetary refund or penalty by Dan and Jacob for their health issue which they experienced after eating he cake which was not gluten free. When Kimiko ordered cake in the shop of Mikaela she stated some o the conditions before giving the order. Kimiko said that the cake will be chocolate cake which will cover with a purple and blue icing, as she was planning the cake for a sports function. After making the agreement of the cake order with Mikaela, Kimiko found a sign in a wall that they are not responsible for the breach of the warranty. After getting delivery of the cake Kimiko found that the colour of the icing was green and blue which was not ordered to Mikaela. This was the mistake of Mikaela because she has not given the appropriate colour of icing which was needed. In this case the icing colour is the condition. This is not the warranty. This is the condition because everything was clearly stated when the contract formation was taking place[9]. Negligence has done by Mikaela in taking the order or making the product which was ordered so in this case refund or penalty may have to be asked from Mikaela by Kimiko but if the quality or delivery of time was breached then it could by warranty and no can be done on breach of warranty which is stated in the sign of the wall by Mikaela. When the order has been given by Kimiko, it was clearly stated that the cake will be chocolate cake and the icing of the cake will be blue and purple, as it is for sports purpose. All the descriptions are the conditions of the order. Among the entire conditions one was breached by Mikaela because of her negligence and carelessness. She has used wrong icing colour on the cake which was her careless act. Condition is the root of any contract and if any rule or terms of the condition is breached then the contract may be cancelled by the innocent party. In this case Kimiko can cancel the order or ask for the refund as Mikaela has delivered wrong order. In case of breach of condition in a contract the innocent party has right to terminate the contract which can be done by Kimiko[10]. There should be some basic principles of any condition in a contract that elements and terms of the contract should be fulfilled by both the parties and the person who breaches the term or condition should be asked penalty from him. In this case scenario breach of duty of care has done by Mikaela because she has performed careless cake in doing the icing of the cake[11]. It is the duty of Mikaela to appropriately take the order and make those things understood to the worker of her company before delivering the cake. So in this case Mikaela has not taken the order appropriately and not fulfilled her duty and breached both the duty and conditions of the order or agreement. The colour which she used was wrong and by this way negligence is done by her and duty of care is breached. In this case neighbours principle is hurt and Kimiko is the neighbour whose principle is hurt because her plan for arranging cake in the sports function was not fulfilled because of the wrong colour of icing on the chocolate cake which ordered. In this case Mikaela is highly responsible for such mistake and for that reason she may be asked penalty. In this case financial penalty should be asked from Mikaela. In a business law there are some ethical principles which are needed to be fulfilled by those people who make contract between each other[12]. It is necessary that ethical rules should be fulfilled because any contract in a business should have some terms and conditions which are needed to be fulfilled whenever necessary.