Condition is a vital term of a contract going to the root of the contract. A breach of condition entitles the injured party to repudiate the contract and to claim damages. ” Comments The sections of SOGO are well discussed and the conclusion is logical for most part. The treatment of the legal issues could be covered at a longer length. You may need to consider sl 2(1), which provides that unless a different intention appears from the terms of the contract, stipulations as to time of payment are not deemed to be of the essence of a contract of sale.
In this case, the date of delivery as stipulated, therefore time is to be regarded as of the essence. It is therefore a breach of condition to fail to deliver by the stated date. This would allow Massy to reject the goods if they so desired. Obviously, if their market has been affected by the late delivery it may be in their interests to reject the goods, although the alternative is to treat the late delivery as a breach of warranty. You also need to consider s30 of SOGO.
Only $13.90 / page
According to s30, “Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions,” “unless otherwise agreed, delivery of the goods and payment f the price are concurrent conditions, that is to say, the seller must be ready and willing to give possession of the goods to the buyer in exchange for the price, and the buyer must be ready and willing to pay the price in exchange for possession of goods. The failure to deliver the correct quantity invokes s 32 SOGO, where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than was contracted for, the buyer may reject the goods, but if the buyer accepts them, s/he must pay for them at the contract rate.
However, if the shortfall or the excess is so slight that it would be nreasonable for the buyer to do so. It is likely, therefore, that Wishful raise this ‘defence’ in order to prevent rejection of the goods by Massy. The courts may well accept that the ‘shortfall is so slight’ that it would be unreasonable to allow Massy to reject the goods. With respect to the fourth instalment, whether property has passed and therefore risk, will depend on whether s 20, rule 5 is applicable.
If at the time of the fire, the wine is still in the barrels, then s 18 is more likely to be applied and, as property has not passed, risk remains with the seller (s 22). If the wine has been bottled and laced in cases and assent by the buyer is assumed under the contract, property in the goods will have passed to the buyer and therefore they must bear the loss. Referencing Style – a separate page should be reserved for endnotes and bibliography.
Deduction TOTAL 5 marks for no reference page History Assignment – Tewordros (Ethiopia) By DiJonrg ‘A prophet of change who could not achieve his vision’ to what extent do you agree with this statement of Tewodras II of Ethiopia Theodore II (Tewodros) had great visions and aims for Ethiopia but the ways in which he tried to achieve these aims and restore unification within Ethiopia was somewhat failure and caused him to be unsuccessful in the eyes of some historians, hence the statement ‘A prophet of change who could not achieve his vision’.
Theodore was born in 1818 by the name of ‘Kasa’ to the governor of the Qwara province. Being born to a governor meant he was born into power already because like most sons of governors he was most likely to follow in the shadow of his father in the future. His father died when he was young therefore his half-brother succeeded their father and brought up Kasa. He was an educated child, as he studies Amharic) the official language of Ethiopia and Arabic.
Due to the period he was born in which was one of anarchy whereby young men had to achieve respect and power through warfare and brigandage, Kasa soon became a distinguished soldier and was made the commander of the governor’s army. Soon after this he became governor of Qwara in 1845 and by then he already had a large following of armed men from his time as commander when he was a freebooter in the northwest. He had the ambition to go further and obtain the imperial throne despite having no rightful claim to the throne.
Tewodras saw the potential in the possibility of reunifying Ethiopia. Very early on he set aims for the country based on a vision he had for Ethiopia. These aims were as such; to unify Ethiopia through a strong central government, to restore the ancient glories of the Solomanic kingdom and more. He started putting his plans to action very soon after his appointment as governor. Between 1852 and 1855 he launched a military campaign, and by 1853 he had brought the western provinces of GoJJam and Gondar under his control.
Then by 1855 he was victorious over the Ras (Prince) of Tigre. It was after this and the defeating of every major rival in Ethiopia, that he rowned himself by the head of the Ethiopian church as emperor, negust nagast (king of kings) by the name Theodore II (Tewodros II). Shortly after his coronation he conquered the province of Shoa and took Menelik II hostage who was the son of the ras of shoa who had recently died. After achieving supremacy in his nation and being the first national leader in Ethiopia he then set to try and unify his country.
This is where he showed he was indeed a prophet of change for Ethiopia, where he actually attempted to unify Ethiopia. To unify the country he had to first pin point the roblems they faced which were that there were too many powerful provincial warlord, also the Galla had penetrated and ravaged many of the country and the country was threatened by the Egyptians on the red sea cost. He wanted to rectify this and also wipe out Islam, conquer the Sudan and Egypt, and possibly recapture Jerusalem and occupy the throne of Solomon in Israel.
To achieve these objectives he had to introduce some reforms to the country and this is when he showed his true attempt of changing Ethiopia in order to unify them. He firstly established a highly centralized government in which all loyalty was to him. He crushed all the enemies to were deprived of their armies. He then organised a national standing army which he equipped with modern weapons to fght his series of campaigns. He took a big stand when he hired European missionaries as artisans to produce arms and ammunition for his army.
This showed he was seen willing to go for outside help in order to help better his country. He also imposed heavy taxes on the people to enable him to pay for the army and other subjects. His final change was putting some reforms in the church. The church owned one third of the land and the priests of these churches aid no tax. Theodore II confiscated part of the church’s property and left Just enough land for each church to sustain two priests and three deacons. The others who were left over were expected to work and pay taxes like other citizens. These reforms had clearly brought about a reaction from the Ethiopians.
These reactions can be looked at as reasons why the statement states that Theodore II was a prophet of change who COULDN’T achieve his vision because these changed weren’t upheld by the public and therefore the efforts to unite the nation was eventually seen as a failure. Firstly he nobility resisted the highly centralized government which Tewodros established. They were opposed to a unified system of government which all loyalty went to the emperor. Also the priests that were stripped of their privileges and wealth and made normal citizens Joined the forces with the nobility against Theodore.
The public were also very angry with Theodore due to the high taxes they were made to pay. They resented the fact that their money was being wasted on his soldiers and the army. The failure really reached an extent when his own men starting turning on him and abandoning him. Some left as they were unhappy with their constant campaigns of suppressing rebellions in the country. Some were also not properly paid which led them to leave to the country sides or Join other rebel leaders who were eventually to lead Ethiopia.
A key point in the ruling of Theodore II was during the 1860’s when due to how his people responded to his reforms he chose to push harder and be more brutal and harsh on his people. He even went to the extent of imprisoning the abuna (the head of the Ethiopian church) and destroyed the churches in Gondar. This brought an even bigger gap and lost him more respect form his own subjects and eople. Although these were all vital in him failing to unify Ethiopia, and failing as a ruler it was his altercations with Britain which led to his final downfall.