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
The Mabo case was a legal case held in 1992. It was named after an Aboriginal man called Eddie Mabo, who challenged Australian legal system. He fought for claiming the legal rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait inhabitants. From Mabo’s perspective, Aboriginal people are the traditional owners of their land as they occupied and lived in Australia for thousands of years, much longer and earlier than British people’s arrival in 1788. However, after British people took charge of this continent, Aboriginal people’s life went from bad to worse. They had no legal rights and were treated like animals. Their lives were severely threatened. Moreover, they lost their homes although they were the original owner of the land. After ten years
However, the fourth element, which is "legal object," may not be satisfied between Sam and the chain store because there was nothing in writing, nothing was “drawn.” An oral promise would make the contract invalid if the completion of that promise will take more than a year from the date of agreement. However, if the chain store has written proof confirming Sam 's promise, for example, advertisements, invoices that the store only prepares in the regular course of business after an oral promise for a product delivery has been made, a court may consider Sam 's oral promise legally binding. Then it would be considered a "primary obligation" (since there was a debt incurred in anticipation of the sale of his invention at their stores). In that event, the contract does not need to be in writing to be enforced since primary obligations are not within the statute of frauds. So if the chain store does not get their 1000
Krum, the court ruled that when the defendant sold ice cream to the plaintiff, he did so with the implied warranty that it was fit for human consumption, and referring to a previous case, determined that this implied warranty was necessary to the preservation of health and life (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Race v. Krum, 118 N.E., at P#2 and #4, (1918)); similarly, in Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., the court ruled that privity between the manufacturer and the ultimate consumer was not essential for recovery of damages as this recovery would not impose a greater burden on the manufacturer or on the immediate seller of the food than it would be if the original purchaser had been injured (GRADUATE RESOURCE, Klein v. Duchess Sandwich Co., Ltd., 14 Cal.2d 272 (S.F. No. 16626., at Pgs. 13-14
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.
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)
...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.
Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “any person, who is injured by a product may bring a negligence suit even though he or she was not the one who actually purchased the product”. Therefore, no, priority of contract would not be required for Kolchek to succeed in a product liability action against Great Lakes because the buyer does not need to have to directly involved with the manufacture, as long as the product was made from the manufacture itself.
It seems as though Brad and Chardonnay have been subject to professional negligence, or more specific negligent misstatement. Professional negligence is very similar to general negligence, one of the significant difference being you cannot claim for economic loss within general negligence but you can in professional (provided specific criteria are met).
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]
The Dangote Group is one of the most diversified business conglomerates in Africa with a hard-earned reputation for excellent business practices and products' quality with its operational headquarters in the bustling metropolis of Lagos, Nigeria in West Africa.
Donoghue became ill in consequence. She could not sue the shop as she had not bought the bottle but could sue the manufacture as during inspection the snail was not discovered in the bottle, which could lead and did lead to injury to a person, and was shipped off to market. The manufacture was held responsible due to the neighbour principle. The reasonable man linked to this case would be that the manufacturer should have determined that the standard care for everything depended on the circumstances and what should have been known or what was known by the defendant. So it was reasonably foreseeable that the contaminated product would lead to injury to a person upon consumption and the necessary precautions were not in place from the reasonable man which led to damages being sought. The reasonable man should employ precautions and skill necessary to the
An offer continues in existence, capable of acceptance until it is brought to an end.
Implied terms – they are not expressed but they are adopted as “obvious” an individual must comply with (e.g) if buying a product and it is not in a good taste the consumer has the right to return it to the owner for exchange or refund.
Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection” (87). In conclusion, I believe that Hume thinks that reason, while not completely useless, is not the driving force of moral motivation. Reasons are a means to sentiments, which in turn are a means to morality, but without reasons there can still be sentiments. There can still be beauty. Reasons can not lie as the foundation of morality, because they can only be true or false.