Question 3b - LAW446 TUTORIAL WORK PDF

Preview

Summary

dQuesion 3Aqilah bought 50 pieces of ceramic plates after she was shown a sample byTasha. 30pieces of the plates delivered to Aqilah were of the same green colour as the samplebut the other 20 were of different colours. Meanwhile, Aqilah used the 30 pieces ofgreen plates to serve food at her daughte...

Description

dQuestion 3 Aqilah bought 50 pieces of ceramic plates after she was shown a sample byTasha. 30 pieces of the plates delivered to Aqilah were of the same green colour as the sample but the other 20 were of different colours. Meanwhile, Aqilah used the 30 pieces of green plates to serve food at her daughter's forest themed birthday party. However, when hot food was put onto the plates, they cracked into pieces. Advise Aqilah on whether she has the right to take an action against Tasha pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1957.(20 marks)

b) The issue in this situation is whether Aqilah has right to take action against Tasha under the Sale of Goods Act. Section 4(1) of the sale of goods act, explains that sale of goods is contract whereby the seller transfers or agree to transfer property in goods to the buyers for a money consideration called the price. Here, Tasha is a seller who will transfer plates to Aqilah for cash consideration. Section 17 (2)(b) of the sale of goods act, provides that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality. This law illustrated in the case, Nagurdas purshotmundas v Mitsui Bussan kaisha, where the defendant contracted to sell to the plaintiff flour known as ‘golden dragon’. Later plaintiff ordered ’the same as our previous contracts’ flour identical in quality was delivered but it did not bear the same well known trademark. The court held that, the goods did not comply with description. Thus, if the seller deliver to the buyer the goods he contracted to sell mixed with goods of a different description , the buyer may reject the whole or accept the contractual goods and reject the rest according to section 37(3) of the sale of goods act. Other than that the good also must merchantable quality pursuant to section 16(1)(b) of the sale of goods act. This law illustrated in the case, David jones Ltd v Willis, Willis went to the shoe department of David jones and told the saleswoman that she wanted a comfortable pair of walking shoes. After trying on a number of pairs , she bought a pair which was recommended by the saleswoman. The third time that she wore the shoes the heel brook off one of them, causing her to fall and break her leg. The evidence show that the heel had not been properly attached to the shoes. The court held that, there had been a breach of the implied condition of merchantable quality. Referring to section 12(2) of the sale of goods act, condition is stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of condition give right to repudiate the contract and claim damages. To relate with the situation, Tasha shown a sample to Aqilah of ceramic plate. Subsequently, an order was made by Aqilah for 50 pieces of ceramic plates that quality equal to the sample. However, then Tasha delivered 30 plates same green colour as sample and 20 plates were different. Referring to the case, Nagurdas purshotmundas v Mitsui Bussan kaisha, Tasha has delivered the goods that did not comply with the description, here Tasha has breached section 17(2)(b) of the sale of goods act, which the goods delivered must equal as sample quality. Thus, Aqilah under section 37(3) of the sale of

goods act may reject the whole plates or accept the plates 30 plates that correspond with the sample and reject the rest. Furthermore, pertaining to the case David jones Ltd v Willis, the plates that Aqilah bought from Tasha is unmerchantable quality, since the plates cracked into piece when hot foods put onto the plates, thus Tasha has breach section 16(1)(b) of the sale of goods act, which provides that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. Thus, according to section 12(2) of the sale of goods act, Aqilah has right to repudiate the contract and claim the damage because Tasha has breached implied condition. As conclusion, Aqilah has right to take action against Tasha under the law of sale of good because of breached of implied condition....