In business law our lecturer asked,; Who pays for a good damaged after a customer selects items from a shop or super market to buy,is it the customer or the owner of the business He therefore ask the class to make a group and do it. As a new student who doesn't know how to write response to questions in business law,how do I write it.
The common form of analyzing an issue like that in law school is in "IRAC" form.
This stands for: Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion.
Thus, you might write something along the lines of:
Issue: Does risk of loss to damage fall on a customer who has selected a good to purchase but not yet paid for it, or on the seller?
Rule: Risk of loss passes upon transfer of title pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code which happens at the time of an actual sale.
Analysis: The good has not yet been sold, even though the would be buyer has strongly considered buying it. We know this because if the buyer returned the item selected without damaging it, the buyer would not be required to buy it.
Conclusion: The risk of loss is on the seller and the buyer is not required to pay for the damage.
In reality, there is more than one issue present in the question, as is often the case. For example, if the good not yet purchased was damaged through the negligence of the buyer, or was custom built for the buyer, the risk of loss would be on the buyer due to exceptions to the general rule. The cause of the damage would also matter in terms of analysis of the buyer's warranty rights that might be setoff against a claim from the seller. But, that is a typical format (ideally with more full elaboration of the analysis and the source of the rule) for an answer to a question like that one.
Often those four bullet points would be proceeded by a heading: "Facts:" setting for the facts of the case as set forth in the question. A really first rate "Facts" section would also set forth facts that could conceivably be relevant to an answer that are not currently known.
If you prefer a more informal presentation, skip the headings and simply provide that information in that order in successive paragraphs.
Of course, you would also typically set forth the name of the people answering the question (with contact information, if necessary), an identification of the class it is filed in and the question it is in response to (e.g. "Regarding: Chapter 7, Exercise 4 assigned September 30, 2019") if applicable, and the date that your response is submitted. This would typically go in a heading of some type on the top of the first page of the response.
If there are multiple pages, you should have page number and a sufficient header or footer on the second and subsequent pages to identify which answer it is a part of if the pages are printed and then dropped and jumbled with other people's responses.
Of course, first, you should read the syllabus and any specific instructions regarding that assignment from the instructor and should disregard anything in this answer that is contrary to that.
As a new student who doesn't know how to write response to questions in business law,how do I write it.
That depends on how much background in law your lecturer/class has developed so far.
The scenario you describe is too open or too vague. Any conclusion as to who would be responsible for the damage(s) requires you to consider first a set of assumptions, since the sense of your answer will depend on these. For instance, the scenario conveys nothing about the circumstances in which the damages happened.
The tag you selected suggests that your instructor expects your rationale to be premised on contract law (without necessarily ruling out other legal concepts covered in the lectures, such as torts). Thus, you might want to start by identifying what each party's knowledge or understanding was --particularly regarding his reasonable obligations toward the counterparty-- prior and up to the occurrence of damages.
Once you outline the parties' knowledge, you would need to assess whether their knowledge and conduct therewith amounts to having formed a contract. From there, you will then assess whether or how the event of damage relates to that contract.
Since the scenario is too broad, it might be a good idea to argue how your answer would change if you modify your assumptions.