商务契约关系Outcome1

CASE 1:

Q1: I s Maggie entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning for selling her a defective tumble dryer and will it matter that she purchased the goods in a sale?

1.Yes, Maggie is entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning for selling her

a defective tumble dryer in terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

2.Thunderbolt & Lightning will be in breach of Section 14 of the 1979 Act. The store has

broken one of the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (Sections 12-15) which are always assumed to form part of every contract of sale.

3.Section 14 also states that goods will be of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a

reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. Section 14 lists five examples of quality that buyers can use to help them decide whether the goods that they have purchased fall below the expected standard of quality:

•fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied

•appearance and finish

•freedom from minor defects

•safety

•durability

The tumble dryer is not fit for its purpose, it is unsafe and it is not durable. The protection which Section 14 gives to buyers is only applicable in situations where the seller is selling the goods in the course of business. Maggie, of course, has purchased the goods from a business seller.

4.Will it make a difference that Maggie purchased the goods in a sale? No. The only exceptions

will be when detects were specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention by the seller.

Furthermore, if the buyer examined the goods before purchasing them and noticed any obvious defects, she/he will not have the protection of Section l4.

5.More generally, the buyer’s claim that goods were not of satisfactory quality will be defeated

if the goods have been subject to wear and tear, the buyer has misused the goods or the buyer now has simply taken a dislike to the goods.

6.Section 48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 now states that there will be a strong

presumption operating against the seller that if the goods develop defects within six months from the date of delivery to the buyer. Then they will probably have failed to meet the requirement of satisfactory quality.

7.Candidates must be able to cite at least one of the following:

•Jackson v Rotax Motor and Cycle Co [1910]

•Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936]

•Mash and Murrell v Joseph I Emmanuel [196/], [1962]

•Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965]

•BS Brown & Son Ltd v Craiks Ltd[1970]

•Millars of Falkirk v Turpie [1976]

Q2: What legal action, if any, can Charlie pursue as a result of the injuries that he has