Application & Conclusion PDF

Preview

Summary

practice materials...

Description

APPLICATION & CONCLUSION Base on this question, as a buyer, Suzie must apply a caveat emptor rule which means she has to be careful in choosing the quality that fulfil his purpose before purchasing the goods. According to Section 16(1)(b), Suzie has fulfil 4 condition in purchasing the goods. Firstly, the buyer should disclosure of her purpose. In this situation, Suzie has disclose to the manager of BBE that she need a big oven that she can bakes the pastries in a large volume daily. Applying the case of Sunrise Bhd & Anor. v L & M Agencies Sdn. Bhd, the oven that he bought is not fit with the particular purpose that she was purchased. Second condition is reliance on seller’s skills and judgement. So, Suzie also relied on the manager of BBE’s recommendation where he asked her to bought the five tiers electric deck oven from Hot Oven brand and mixer of Mix-It brand while applying the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills. Third condition is the goods supplied are of the description which the seller’s business to supply. Suzie has bought the goods at Baker’s Best Equipment which is sells various bakery equipment. However, the BBE has breached the implied condition as to merchantable quality as the electric deck oven that Suzie bought is not fit and suitable to bake a pastries. Applying the case of Kendall & Sons v Wiiliam Lilico & Sons Ltd, BBE is liable for breached the condition as the oven is unmerchantable. Moreover, Suzie could not discovered the defects of the Mix-It Dough Mixer because she could not make any reasonable examination before purchasing mixer according to the case of Thornett & Fehr v Beerd & Sons. Refer to the case of Wilson v Cricket, Cockerell & Co. Ltd, BBE is liable for breach of implied condition even they sold the oven under “Mix-It Dough” brand....