Business Law: Insolvency Act of 1986

Business Law
1. With the legal issue against Pilar, Julio can seek for a public attorney’s assistance through the Insolvency Act of 1986. This is because under the UK Insolvency law, this is with regards to the voluntary arrangement between two parties where it allow debt problems that were agreed over a period of time to be protected. The legal benefits for Julio is that he can terminate the agreement with Pilar for suddenly being mandated to pay for the remaining agreed amount to at least 6000 pounds instead of 8000 pounds. However, Pilar wants to take advantage of Julio’s liability by mandating him to pay for the remaining balance, which was not the case when they initially agreed that he will pay 6000 pounds.
Julio can waive his right under the corporate laws of the United Kingdom. Even if his position is placed under corporate rights, the issue is extended towards private individuals engaged in business-related activities. The other issue that Julio can evade the existing amount that has been implied by Pilar is that he is a student with no stable job, which makes him being unable to pay for the remaining debt because he is legally bankrupt with no stable job while being enrolled to an institution. The law could allow the existing business relationship between Julio and Pilar to be terminated due to Julio’s current financial situation. Insolvency laws help individuals who are unable to pay for their debts to be rescued by the government who will prevent financial consequences and legal issues towards the affected individual. This is because Pilar is taking a substantive transaction that unjustified or enriches the expense of other individuals such as Julio (Goode, 2011).
For the case of Tim, Julio might or might not aware that Cool Chix was actually not the former owner of the van. In this case, Tim is now initiating a case against Julio because he was misrepresented by Julio’s statement during the time of the transaction. Under the Misrepresentation Act of 1967 Section 2 (2), it states that Tim has entered in a certain contract that has been involved in a misrepresentation activity. There is a fraudulent act that brought into a misrepresentation of the case in a certain contract. In this case, the court case that will be involved with Tim’s case will declare that the contract is void because there have been damages applied to the offended party such as Tim. The nature of misrepresentation tricked Tim into buying the van, thinking that it was previously owned by Cool Chix.
However, there are certain circumstances that Julio will present in this particular case. This includes mitigating circumstances wherein he will present the facts that will be helping the case to lower the violation of the case. This includes having been falsely informed that the van was not actually owned by Cool Chix before he bought it. In addition, he may still provide proof of evidence that Cool Chix is in fact the previous owners by citing proofs such as photos, videos, and certification signed by a legal representative.
For the case of Edwina, she and Julio agreed to establish a contract together with the sale of the van. She agreed with Julio to purchase the van for the amount of 6,500 in British Pounds. Edwina can...