商务契约关Outcome1.docVIP

CASE 1: Q1: Is 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? 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). 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. 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. 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. 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