商务契约关系Outcome1

1CASE1:Q1:IsMaggieentitledtobringalegalactionagainstThunderbolt&Lightningforsellingheradefectivetumbledryerandwillitmatterthatshepurchasedthegoodsinasale?1.Yes,MaggieisentitledtobringalegalactionagainstThunderbolt&LightningforsellingheradefectivetumbledryerintermsoftheSaleofGoodsAct1979(asamended).2.Thunderbolt&LightningwillbeinbreachofSection14ofthe1979Act.ThestorehasbrokenoneoftheimpliedtermsoftheSaleofGoodsAct1979(Sections12-15)whicharealwaysassumedtoformpartofeverycontractofsale.3.Section14alsostatesthatgoodswillbeofsatisfactoryqualityiftheymeetthestandardthatareasonablepersonwouldregardassatisfactory,takingaccountofanydescriptionofthegoods,theprice(ifrelevant)andalltheotherrelevantcircumstances.Section14listsfiveexamplesofqualitythatbuyerscanusetohelpthemdecidewhetherthegoodsthattheyhavepurchasedfallbelowtheexpectedstandardofquality:fitnessforallthepurposesforwhichgoodsofthekindinquestionarecommonlysuppliedappearanceandfinishfreedomfromminordefectssafetydurabilityThetumbledryerisnotfitforitspurpose,itisunsafeanditisnotdurable.TheprotectionwhichSection14givestobuyersisonlyapplicableinsituationswherethesellerissellingthegoodsinthecourseofbusiness.Maggie,ofcourse,haspurchasedthegoodsfromabusinessseller.4.WillitmakeadifferencethatMaggiepurchasedthegoodsinasale?No.Theonlyexceptionswillbewhendetectswerespecificallydrawntothebuyer’sattentionbytheseller.Furthermore,ifthebuyerexaminedthegoodsbeforepurchasingthemandnoticedanyobviousdefects,she/hewillnothavetheprotectionofSectionl4.5.Moregenerally,thebuyer’sclaimthatgoodswerenotofsatisfactoryqualitywillbedefeatedifthegoodshavebeensubjecttowearandtear,thebuyerhasmisusedthegoodsorthebuyernowhassimplytakenadisliketothegoods.6.Section48A(3)oftheSaleofGoodsAct1979nowstatesthattherewillbeastrongpresumptionoperatingagainstthesellerthatifthegoodsdevelopdefectswithinsixmonthsfromthedateofdeliverytothebuyer.Thentheywillprobablyhavefailedtomeettherequirementofsatisfactoryquality.7.Candidatesmustbeabletociteatleastoneofthefollowing:JacksonvRotaxMotorandCycleCo[1910]GrantvAustralianKnittingMillsLtd[1936]MashandMurrellvJosephIEmmanuel[196/],[1962]BartlettvSidneyMarcusLtd[1965]BSBrown&SonLtdvCraiksLtd[1970]MillarsofFalkirkvTurpie[1976]Q2:Whatlegalaction,ifany,canCharliepursueasaresultoftheinjuriesthathehas2suffered?1.CharliewillnotbeentitledtobringanactionunderSection14oftheSaleofGoodsActl979,becausehedoesnothaveacontractualrelationshipwithThunderbolt&Lightning.2.CharlieisinamuchstrongerlegalpositionthankstoPartIoftheConsumerProtectionActl987whichallowshimtopursueacivilclaimfordamagesagainstthemanufacturerofthetumbledryerinrespectofhisinjuries.PartloftheConsumerProtectionActestablishesaregimeofstrictliabilityinrelationtodefectiveproductswhichcausedamagetootherpropertyand/orinjuriestopeoplewhowereinjuredasaresultofusingtheproductorwhocameintoclosecontactwiththeproduct.Strictliabilityautomaticallypresumesthatthedefectintheproductmustbethefaultoftheproducerofthegoods.Themanufacturermustcomeupwithacredibleexplanationtoshowwhyshe/heisnottoblamefortheinjuriesorlossthatthepursuer(Charlie)hassuffered.3.The1987Actappliestodangerousproductswhicharecapableofcausingdamagetothepursuer’spropertyorcapableofcausingthepursuertosuffersomesortofpersonalinjury.Thefactthattheproductisnotworkingproperlywillnotgiveapursuertherighttoraiseanactionagainstthedefender.Manyproductsaredefectivewithoutbeingdangerousinanyway.Q3:DoyouthinkthatThunderbolt&LightningwillbeabletoescapeliabilitytoMaggiebyclaimingthatthemanufacturerwasresponsibleforthedefectsinthegoods?1.No.Thunderbolt&Lightning’sattempttoescapeliabilitytoMaggiebyclaimingthatthemanufacturerwasresponsibleforthedefectsinthegoodswillfallfouloftheconceptofstrictliabilityintheSaleofGoodsAct1979.2.Thebuyer’scontractiswiththeselleranditisirrelevanttothebuyerwhetherthedefecthasbeencausedbyamanufacturingfaultornot.Theseller’sliabilityissaidtobestrictinthesensethatthebuyerdoesnothavetoprovefaultorblameontheseller’spart.3.Asellercaninturnsuethemanufacturerforsupplyingitwithdefectivegoodsifthebuyerhassuccessfullysuedhim/herfordefectsinthegoods.Thebuyermayhavesufferedapersonalinjuryorhis/herpropertymayhavebeendamagedasaresultofusingthedefectivegoods.Thesellerwillhavetocompensatethebuyerforanyinjuriessufferedoranydamagecausedasaresultofusingthegoods.So,compensationcouldbeawardedforthedestructioncausedtoMaggie’skitchenandclothingintheapplianceatthetimeoffire.4.Manufacturingguaranteesmayalsogiveanindicationastothelengthoftimethatabuyercanexpectthegoodstomeettheappropriatestandardofquality.Thismightbeastrongindicationofamajordefect.Section14oftheSaleofGoodsActl979statesthatmanufacturingguaranteesaredirectlyenforceableagainstthemanufacturerandanyperson(Thunderbolt&Lightning)whousesaguaranteetosellormarketthegoodstoaconsumer.Q4:DoyouthinkthatThunderbolt&LightningwillbeabletorelyontheaboveexclusionclausetoescapeanypotentialliabilitytoMaggie?1.Thunderbolt&Lightning’sattempttorelyontheexclusionclausetoescapeanypotentialliabilitytoMaggiewillfailmiserably.2.Such