Week 7 Tutorial Question PDF

Preview

Summary

Question...

Description

Week 7 Tutorial Question a) Jack, a gentleman of means, advertised one of his private cars for sale at a price of £1000. Alice, an impecunious student, bought the car intending to use it to get to work. The car was a 1991 Gasper and was unreliable and temperamental. What legal rights if any does Alice have?

Introduction – identify the parties and issues at hand. - Buyer beware – different regulations for private sales - State that the car is unreliable and temperamental under what circumstances - What areas of law are you talking about – contract law Legislation – determine any applicable statute. Sales of goods act 1979– - The seller must have the right to sell - The vehicle should match the description - Car does not have to be of satisfactory quality Misrepresentation Act 1967 - Negligent mispresentation - potential but need more information on the fact - Buyer makes their intentions clear and you fail to reveal the car would not be suitable for their needs. - If the driver never stated their intentions to you, then they would find it difficult to prove that you deliberately misled them. The Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to sell an roadworthy car - Vehicle needs to be examined by someone credible in court and establish it was unroadworthy when sold. - Steps should be completed within 4 weeks of the purchase. Case law – identify the relevant cases to support/underpin your answers. Misrepresentation: Fordy v Harwood [1999] – described car as ‘absolutely mint’ which although it was roadworthy, it was not. This representation was seen as false so was a mispresentation. Sales of goods act 1979: Description and quality: - Beale v Taylor [1967] breach of s.13 car did not match its description. However, the defendant was not liable for breach of s.14 relating to quality as it was not a business sale. Remedies The Road Traffic Act 1988 - Criminal offence - Prosecuted and if found guilty may be subject to a fine of £5000 - Only will be considered if have evidence to show that the vehicle was dangerously unroadworthy at the time of sale. - Policy is not to prosecute private individuals for selling unroadworthy cars – may be able to take action against the seller yourself. Small claims court – civil case.

Misrepresentation act 1967 - Mispresentation under section 2(1) of the misrepresentation act 1967 – statement is made carelessly without reasonable grounds for believing its truth - Rescission or damages Sales of goods act 1979 - A price reduction must be an appropriate amount, which will depend on all the circumstances of the claim. It can be any amount up to the whole price - Damages Conclusions – your final advice which address both parties at hand.

Answer The issue presented in this case that needs to be considered is Alice being sold an unreliable and temperamental car by Jack. The context of law for this case is contract law. As this case is about a private sale, it is important to consider the caveat emptor ‘buyer beware’ element of private sales, as legislation is applied differently to private sales as opposed to business to consumer sales. Legislation that could apply to this case would include The Sale of Goods Act 1979, Mispresentation Act 1967 and The Road Traffic Act 1988. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that the seller must have the right to sell and the vehicle must match the description, when considering private sales. When considering buyer beware, the goods do not have to be of satisfactory quality in private sales. This applies to the fact of this case as the courts would have to decipher how the car is described when advertised, and whether a false description induced Alice to purchase the car. Under the Mispresentation Act 1979, this case may include a negligent mispresentation. This would depend on the information given to Jack by Alice. Alice intends to use the car for getting to work so needs a reliable car, however the case does not state whether this was communicated to Jack. If this was communicated and Jack has made a representation to assure Alice that the car is reliable, this may lead to a misrepresentation under this act. However, more information would be needed before this could be established. Lastly, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 it is an offence to sell an un-roadworthy car. The case does not state whether the car was roadworthy or not and thus the courts would have to establish whether it was unroadworthy when sold. Case law can be applied to cases with similar facts. Beale V Taylor [1967] may be applied to this Alice v Jack case. In Beale v Taylor, a car part was sold that did not match the description. The outcome of this case was that there was a breach of s.13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as the part sold did not match the description. However, the defendant was not liable for breach of s.14 relating to quality as it was not a business sale. The ratio decendi of this Beale v Taylor could be applied to this case

depending on whether the car did not meet its description. If it did not meet the description, Jack would be liable for a breach of s.13 of the Sales of Goods Act. Alice would have no claim for s.14 as the sale was private and thus s.14 does not apply. Fordy v Harwood [1999] could apply to this case based on if there is a misrepresentation present. In this case the car was described as ‘absolutely mint’, which although it was roadworthy, it was not mint. The outcome is that this representation was false and therefore was established as a misrepresentation. Similar could apply for Alice and Jack, however, it depends on how the car was advertised and whether a false representation induced Alice to purchase a car that was not as expected. Remedies for this case may include damages and/or recession of contract for Alice, whilst Jack could potentially face a criminal offence. Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Alice may potentially receive a price reduction of an appropriate amount or damages based on if the car was as described by Jack, however, the court would require more details to be able to establish this. Under the Misrepresentations Act 1967, Jack may have breached section 2.1. This would lead to Alice having potential damages and rescission of contract. This would be based on whether Jack made a false statement, which induced Alice to buy the car. Again, the courts would require further detail, before being able to establish this. Lastly, Jack could face a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988, if the car was sold in an unroadworthy condition. However, the courts would have to establish evidence that the car was unroadworthy at the time of purchase. However, for private sales the courts cannot prosecute, but Alice may be able to take action against Jack herself. For the Courts to establish whether Alice had a case or not. On face value, it deems that Jack has acted within the Law, based on Private sales, and that Alice did not follow the Buyer Beware policy and bought a car that was not of satisfactory quality. However, Alice may potentially have a case based on whether the car was as described under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Beale v Taylor case. Additionally, Alice could potentially have a case of misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and Fordy v Harwood case. Again this would require more detail to establish and therefore is only a potential claim after more information is established by the courts. Lastly, Jack could face a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Act 1988 for selling an Unroadworthy car, however this would require establishment of the roadworthiness of the car when it was sold by Jack.

Answer It’s not your question – only take out the important information. Jack advertised private car for £1000. Alice bought the car and it was unreliable and temperamental. What legal rights does Alice have? Scratch out the fluff in the question. Contract between Jack and Alice. Offer, consideration, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal agreement. Private sale – caveat emptor – buyer beware – go in with eyes open. May not be legislation that can cover you – differing rules apply. Misrepresentation – we don’t know.

Statutory legislation Consumer rights act 2015 – could apply. Not likely to have any legislation. Sales of goods act 1979 now does not apply. Have to convince the court to bring in legislation. Caveat emptor – bring in as it’s a private sales

Cases Beale v Taylor [1967] – purposes of this case, bring in sales of goods act 1979. Because the other party was in greater knowledge. – case for Alice....