Case study: David Jones Ltd v Willis (1934) 52 CLR pages 110 till 133.
This case has created controversy among the Courts and such justices as Rich, Starke and Dixon. They all have different but similar decisions, relating to The Sales of Goods Act 1923(C¡¦th).
Summary
This case deals with the defendant David Jones Ltd versus Willis the plaintiff, on the appeal from the supreme court of New South Wales. The case is related to The Sales of Goods Act 1923(C¡¦th). In the case the plaintiff purchased a pair of shoes from the defendant David Jones, a retail distributor of footwear not manufactured by it. On the third occasion of wearing the shoes the heel came off while the plaintiff was walking down the stairs. She fell over and suffered injuries. She sued for damages. The court held that there was a breach of the conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose.
The judge granted a new trial limited to question of damages. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed by the Full Court of the Supreme Court. Special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court was granted to the defendant by the High Court on question whether there was evidence of implied condition or warranty within the meaning of sec 19 (1) or (2) of the sales of Goods Act 1923.The appeal then came on for hearing.
The Sales of Goods Act 1923 (C¡¦th)
„X Codifies the common law, with some modifications.
„X In this situation the contact was for a sale of goods. As we can assume that the pair of shoes purchased from the retailer David Jones cost greater than $20 and the plaintiff had evidence in writing such as a receipt.
„X It is a Sales of goods if ¡§the test is whether the primary objective of the contract is to transfer ownership of goods¡¨ in this case that was exactly the situation.
Contract- Section 6 defines a contract for the sale of goods as, ¡§A contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for money consideration called the price.¡¨ (Carvan, Miles C, Dowler W, 2003, 423). The defendant David Jones transferred a pair of shoes (goods), with the plaintiff for a certain price. As there was an exchange of property with money The Sales of Goods Act applies.
The pair of shoe...
... middle of paper ...
..., or whether the sales representative knew the particular purpose, it does not seem the parties are going to say something new, even if they were not telling the truth. And it seems the merchantable quality section has been fairly investigated and enough evidence has been obtained to come to a conclusion.
In conclusion the sale between David Jones and Mrs. May Elisabeth Willis was a sale by description, it had breeched the implied condition of fitness for a particular purpose along with the implied condition of merchantable quality. Therefore I find the defendant David Jones guilty of sections 19 (1) ¡§An implied condition of fitness for a particular purpose and 19 (2) ¡§An implied condition of merchantable quality¡¨ as it sold faulty stock to the defendant Mrs. May Elisabeth Willis which caused her to fall down the stairs and brake her leg. The defendant can be sued for damages. I therefore support the trial limited to question of damages.
Bibliography
„X Carvan, Miles C, Dowler W, A Guide to Business Law 15th edition. 2003 Sydney: Lawbook Co.
„X Case study: David Jones Ltd v Willis (1934) 52 CLR pages 110 till 133.
Did the court find specific performance to be an adequate legal remedy in this case?
Barbara Kalas (plaintiff) owns a print shop and filed a lawsuit against the defendant, Edward W. Cook for a breach of duties in which Adelam Simmons was the buyer of the estate. Kalas had a very extensive verbal agreement with Simmons for the sale of items and after Simmons’s death Cook declined to pay for these items that were delivered to her.
However in correspondence of 21st March1952 the defendant instigated an alteration to the legal position of both parties, by offering to commence "without prejudice" the delivery instruction covering the balance of bullets, provided that the final delivery would not be made later than 30th September 1952. The plaintiff first repudiated this offer on the 3rd April, but by the 4th of June 1952, a second critical letter was sent out by the plaintiff's solicitor stating its acceptance of the defendant's offer. On 8th July 1952, the defendant propose that it will only purchase 800,000 bullets as opposed to the contracted amount of 1,800,000(less 200,000 which had been delivered and paid) as the contract on the 2nd August had not been accepted by the plaintiff which denied it. And no delivery instructions were given by the defendant on or before the 30th September.
The issue in this case was whether California and Hawaiian Sugar Company could recover the liquidated damages from Sun Ship. Where there is a contract between the parties for liquidated damages and d there were no misrepresentations or unfair dealing in creating the contract,
It was found in the primary court that Helen was not properly appointed as a director of LWC (Beck v L W Furniture Consolidated (Aust) Pty Limited (2011) NSWSC 235). This was not disputed in the Court of Appeal or the High Court (Weinstock, 48). In reaching this decision, Barrett J considered multiple factors, including Amiram’s status an...
...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.
The respondent (Zaluzna, plaintiff) entered the foyer of a supermarket owned by the appellant (Australian Safeway Stores, defendant), of which due to wet weather conditions, the flood had become, “wet or moist”. The respondent slipped and fell on the floor, causing injuries to the respondent. The respondent sued for damages resulting of negligence, and a breach of the general duty of care, and the special duty of care owed by an occupier to an invitee.
The four elements of a contract are the agreement, the consideration, contractual capacity, and a legal object. The oral agreement between Sam and the chain store satisfies the agreement element of a contract definition because when the chain store offered to sell Sam 's invention at their stores, Sam accepted by agreeing to ship 1000 units in exchange. The second element of a contract, the “consideration of each party,” is satisfied because Sam and the chain store have something to give the other (1000 units of the invention in exchange for the exclusive sales of the product at their stores). The third element is “contractual capacity,” which may or may not be fulfilled since we do not know Sam 's age or whether
The contract with ward was not a traditional contract, rather it was a promise to buy back the excess inventory. On many occasions Ward has forced Esquire to increase their inventory against their better judgement, Ward assured them that they would buy back the excess inventory. There was clear and unambiguous promises made by Ward to Esquire that they should not worry about the accumulating inventory of spare parts. Evidence further showed that Fisher, a wards manager assured Esquire that Ward would purchase their excess spare parts inventory. Esquire should consider the excess inventory on wards account, so said Fisher. Ward literally encouraged Esquire to purchase excess spare parts inventory.
Legal Studies Essay Joey Agerholm Exclusion clauses determine the liability of something that might go wrong within a contract. They are used by sellers as an attempt to avoid or limit their liability. The seller has the advantage over the buyer who must agree to the clauses to purchase the product/service. Because of the buyers disadvantage the court takes such cases, involving exclusion clauses, very seriously, and the content of the clauses are carefully interpreted. With the current Trade Practises Act and the Fair Trading Act the standard form of business contract is adequate and effective in protecting the buyer. The Trade Practise Act is the most effective legislation for the protection of the consumer. It implies to the following situations:- - “A promise by the seller that the buyer will become the owner” If a car dealer breaks a promise or part of a contract, for example that he has the right to sell a car, and the car is stolen then although the buyer will have to give the car back he/she will get her money back. - “ A promise by the seller that goods will fit the description supplied by the seller” In this case the buyer is protected if the seller makes a promise, which is a condition of the contract, describing the product, and when the buyer receives the product, it does not match the description. - “ A promise where the seller is made aware of the purpose for which the goods are required, that the goods will be reasonably fit for that purpose” This condition is implied when the buyer makes the purpose of the goods needed known to the seller, and the buyer then relies on the seller’s judgement in providing the correct product. For example it would not be reasonable if you made the seller aware that you wished to purchase something suitable for mowing the average suburban backyard and you were sold a tractor. - “A Promise that goods are of merchantable quality” According to this act a good is considered to be merchantable if they are suitable for the prospect for which other similar goods are sold, involving the description applied to them, the price and any other relevant information. This act does however does not protect the consumer if he/she has examined the product and missed any defects that should have been seen or if the seller made him/her aware of the defect prior to the purchase of the product.
In this assignment we will exam three case-studies and determine whether the best course of action would be litigation, ADR or criminal prosecution. In the first we look a case of embezzlement, the second is a case of product liability and the third involves a supplier providing non preforming goods. We will evaluate the specifics of each and determine the best course of action. Spoiler alert, some of these may involve more than one course of action.
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Cross, Frank B., and Roger LeRoy Miller. "Ch. 13: Strict Liability and Product Liability." The legal environment of business: text and cases, 8th edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning Custom Solutions, 2012. 294-297. Print.
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.
[8] Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Assurance Co. of Australia Ltd (1919) 26 CLR 110