Issue: Can the contract of sale be governed by SOGO? What is the protection for a consumer under SOGO in business sale? What are the consequences of breach of implied terms? Legal Rules to the question (i) to (ii) Victoria bought the new set of dishes in a sale from a local hardware store. By the definition under The Sale of Goods Ordinance, it would appear to be a consumer buying goods from a business seller. It is a contract for sale of goods under business sale whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, s.3(1) of SOGO. Therefore, Victoria has the full protection of the implied terms of SOGO. This means that a breach of an implied condition allows the buyer to repudiate …show more content…
as durable 6. description applied to the goods 7. the price and all other relevant circumstance Fit for its purpose under s.16(3) of the SOGO 1. It applies only in the course of business, not in private sale. 2. All goods have an implied purpose, which is derived from their nature, and common purpose. 3. The period of the innocent party 's right to repudiate the contract should be reasonable if there is no specific period stated in the contract of sale. Application: Victoria bought the dishes from a local hardware store considered as a business sale. If dishes cracked and hurt Victoria 's hands when she was the first time used one of the dishes to hold the hot food, it is probably not of merchantable quality under 16(2). A reasonable person would not be expected a new set of dishes were cracked and hurt her hands because of holding hot food. The safety, durability and description applied to the goods of the product might be called into question. Also, the box, which the dishes were packed, has written “Oven to Tableware. Made in France. Suitable for all types of cooking…” The dishes had an implied a common purpose that it can be used in a high temperature for cooking or normal use because it is for oven use and for all type of cooking. Therefore, the dishes didn 't meet the common purpose of performance. It rendered the item unfit for its purpose under s.16(3) . Whether “first time used” was the date which Victoria bought the dishes or later, if the contract wasn 't having …show more content…
From the users’ advice on the box, it stated that the dishes were "Made in France" and can be the part of description. Second, this provision only applies to sale by description. In this case, we didn’t know whether the description came to the attention of Victoria, but it seen it might not have been until she opened the box and saw one of the dishes at the bottom have a label which showed that it was made in China rather than France. If so, then Victoria has no cause of action against hardware store, because the word "Made in France" cannot have been part of the contractual description at the time making the contract. However, if Victoria was aware of these words before the contract, this does not necessarily mean that there is a breach of
Facts: On December 4, 2012 the case involved Sandra Primrose as plaintiff versus Wal-Mart Stores, INC., as defendant presented in the hearing trial court. Ms. Primrose who was 73 years old at the time claimed that because of the Wal-Mart’s watermelon signs was display in the wrong area, where she was tripped and fell over the corner of the sign on September 09, 2009, and had caused her injuries while trying to transporting the watermelon to her shopping cart. She didn’t filled out the damage reported until September 09 of 2010. On October 15, 2012, Wal’Mart filed a motion for summary judgment request. According to Scott Harden who’s the store manager in this location during the incident was occur claimed that the signs have been in-used for
Were the items specially manufactured goods? Is the defendant to blame since the items cannot be sold at any other location? Is the verbal agreement for the sale of goods more than $500 enforceable?
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
In April 2008, Richard and Michelle McCaulley went to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. (NFM) to buy some furniture. The items selected were to be special ordered by NFM and the total price was quoted at $10,770.70 through the phone by a sales associate. The McCaulleys accepted the price and paid a deposit of $3,500 by credit card. However, no documents were signed to finalize the deal and the salesperson did not mention any additional terms of conditions regarding pricing errors. Later, the McCaulleys received an invoice of $13,240.70 for an order on May 6th 2008. Michelle called NFM to complain and was sent a revised invoice of $10,840.70 which was still more expensive, but she accepted it.
An acceptance is “a final and ineligible expression of assent to the terms of an offer”. Acceptance of an offer can be tenacious through the following guidelines: (1) the acceptance must be communicated with the intention of both parties to enter a mutual contract; however, the offer may be revoked prior to acceptance, (2) the offer can only accept the initial terms and can only be accepted by the intended offeree, (3) the offeree must accept the terms through a concrete method if authoritatively mandated by offeror. [Contracts Law: Offer and Acceptance]. Pine Trees failed to mention/incorporate their disclaimer of consequential damages in the initial terms, engendering a counter offer. (Aguilar Manufacturing v. Richfield)
A) Monteverdi could seek the following damages for the scenario in question 2: compensatory damages, so that Monteverdi can be reimbursed for the amount she spent on the cheese. In addition, Monteverdi could sue for monetary loss. Monteverdi ran a catering business and a gourmet shop, her business ran on selling only organic food. The purchase of the cheese which was not high quality, would have gone to waste. Previously, Monteverdi gave Malvezzi specific instructions about the grade of cheese that she wanted. Monteverdi may argue that the same implied terms applied to the purchase of the Parmigiano cheese. If this was the case, Monteverdi would also be able to sue for liquidated damages due to Malvezzi breaching the contract they had in place. Finally, Monteverdi has the option of seeking damages for fraudulent misrepresentation. The elements of fraudulent misrepresentations were, 1) a representation was made, 2) it was false, 3), the person who made the representation knew it was false, 4) the plaintiff (Monteverdi) relied on the statements, 5) the plaintiff sued for damages. Malvezzi knew that the cheese he sold to Monteverdi was not the quality she expected, yet he sold it to her in order to keep Monteverdi’s
On the 1st of October in the year 2017, the defendant, in this case, the supermarket was found liable for the case Susan injury in the supermarket's premises. The hip injury on Susan’s hip which was a result of the slipping over a squashed banana. The presence of the squashed banana in the premises was an outright sign of negligence and recklessness by the supermarket's staff. (Damage law)
Issue: CanGo does not have a method and process that determines how to plan, develop and control projects. The implementation of the new system integration and the revision of the current production process flowchart, are good examples of CanGos’ struggles. These projects have not been properly managed due to the fact that the teams at CanGo do not have a methodology model. Management lacks the skills need to achieve the projects objectives, executions and deadlines.
She was unable to sue the shopkeeper, as she was a third party. Therefore she sued the manufacturer and the court ruled in her favor, as the manufacturer owes a duty of care to its customers.
Discussion and Analysis: The elements of negligence in this scenario are; although the manager of Foods, Inc. was unaware of
Intergovernmental Organizations do many different things for the international world. They make collective goods, mediate, provide information and even authorize retaliation. One of the fundamental ideas behind IGO’s is that states will value their membership, and want to comply and contribute to ensure their membership and alliance to the IGO as well as the other members. Thus, in a perfect world if all states complied with IGO guidelines, there would be very little to no conflict. Naturally this doesn’t always happen and unfortunately conflict can arise from a lack of compliance. A recent example of this is Russia and their invasion and attempt to annex Crimea.
HILLIARD, J. And O’SULLIVAN, J. (2012) The Law of Contract [Online] 5th Ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available from - http://books.google.co.uk/ [Accessed: 2nd January 2014]
S.6(2) states that as against a person dealing as consumer, liability for breach of the obligations arising from ss.13, 14 or 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (seller's implied undertakings as to conformity of goods with description or sample, or as to their quality or fitness for a particular purpose) cannot be excluded or restricted by reference to any contract term.
The injured party right to claim damage for breach of contract is not forever. The Limitation Act 1980 imposes that consumers only have 6 years to be granted remedies for contracts under deeds (for example, sale of land). If they exceed the limit to claim for damage, customers may not be granted any compensation for the damage. However, courts will have to examine case, for example if customers experience fraud, the time limit to claim remedies may extend.
Noel, Dix. “Defective Products: Abnormal Use, Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk” Vanderbilt Law Review. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2002. 313-23. Print.