Business-Contractual-Relationships-Outcome-1

Case1Q1:Maggie没受伤，她是否有权利起诉Seller？商品是inasale，是否影响Maggie的权利？（买方和卖方的关系）A1:1.Yes,shecandothat.2.ThebasiclawisthesellerviolationtheImpliedTermsofSOGA1979.Itisincludefourterms.a)Section12SOGA1979ImpliedTermsofTitle.b)Section13SOGA1979SalebyDescription.c)Section14SOGA1979SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforPurpose.d)Section15SOGA1979SalebySample.ThiscasewasviolationSection14SOGA1979.Section14impliedtwoterms:SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforthePurpose.ThemajorviolationofthiscaseisSatisfactoryQuality.(1)ThestandardofSection14ofSOGA1979is“thatareasonablepersonwouldregardassatisfactorytakingaccountofanydescriptionofthegoods,theprice(ifrelevant)andallotherrelevantcircumstances”.(2)TherearefactorsthatarelistedinSection14ofSOGA1979aspotentiallyrelevantinappropriatecases:FitnessforthepurposeforwhichgoodsofthekindinquestionarecommonlysuppliedAppearanceandfinishFreedomfromminordefectsSafetyandDurabilityInthiscase,thetumbledryerislackofsafetyanddurability.Maggiejustboughtittwomonths,soitstillanewtumbledryer.Itwascaughtfire.Clearly,itislackofdurability.Thetumbleisalatentdefectinthewiringthatleadstodetonate.Sowesaiditislackofsafety.3.Maggieboughtthetumbledryerinasale,butitdoesnotdiminishthebuyer’srightsunlesstheyareclassedas“seconds”etcoraparticulardefectarebroughttotheattentionofthebuyerasbeingthereasonforthereductioninprice.Maggiedidnotknowthebugofthetumbledryerbeforeshebuysit.SoMaggie’srightsshouldnotbediminished.4.ThecitedcaseisThomsonvJSears＆Co(1926),thepursuerpurchasedbootsforhimselfandsufferedperistalsisofthefootasaresultoftheinsolehavingcrumpledupandbecomeknottedandnodular.Itshouldbeobviousthatthebootsweregoingtobewornasfootwear.InthecaseofPriestvLast(1903),abuyerwasscaldedafterusingahotwaterbottleandwassuccessfulinsuingtheselleronthebasisthatthebottlewasunfitforthepurpose.Strictliabilityalsoappliesanditisnodefensethatthesellerhasdoneallthatisreasonabletoavoidbreachoftheprovision.InthecaseofFrostvAylesburyDairyCOLtd(1905),wheretheplaintiff’swifediedfromconsumingmilkcontaininggermsoftyphoidfeverandthedairycouldnotdefendtheactiononthebasisthattheycouldnotreasonablyhavediscoveredthepresenceofthevirusinthemilk.Q2:Charlie受伤，Maggie该怎么办？A2:1.Charliecannotimpalethesellerbecausethatheisnotthebuyer.Charliehasnocontractualrelationshipwiththeseller.TheprovisionsofSOGA1979onlyapplytothebuyer,nottoanyotherpeopleorparty.HehasnoclaimagainstthesellerundertheAct.2.ThereisacasethatDonoghuevSterenson(1932),MrsDonoghuedrunksomeofmixtureandherfriendthenliftedthebottleandwaspouringouttheremainderintoatumblerwhenadecomposedsnailfloatedoutofhisbottleandintoherdrink.MrsDonoghuesufferedshockandillnessasaresult.Sheclaimeddamagesagainstthemanufacturer.TheHouseofLordsruledthatthemanufacturerwouldhavetopayMrsDonoghuedamagesasheowedadutyofcaretoanyoneusinghisproduct.Hehadfailedinthatdutyofcare.3.AccordingtotheConsumerProtectionAct1987thatthesellerhastoreturnboththepurchasepriceandcompensateforanydamage.Thebuyerdoesnothavetoprovenegligenceonthepartoftheseller.Tothedangerousproductscausingdamagesorinjury,manufacturershouldassumethestrictliability.Justpresumefaultofmanufacturer.4.Inthiscase,CharlieshouldaccordingtotheConsumerProtectionAct1987toimply.Theprocessshouldnotprovethefaultofmanufacturer,justmentionCharliewasinjury.Q3:Seller说是厂商的责任，售商是否可以就此免责？A3:1.No,theycannotexcludeliability.2.AccordingtotheStrictLiabilityinSOGA1979thatthebuyershouldproveitisafaultygood,butthebuyershouldnotprovenegligence.Thesellercoulddamagetothebuyerandthendemandcompensationtothemanufacturer.3.Maggiecangetallofthecompensation;includepersonalinjuryandgoodsdamage.ButshecannotdemandcompensationaboutinjuryofCharliebecauseCharlieisnotthebuyer.Q4:在告示之后的损失，免责条款是否生效？A4:1.Thesellerwillfail,andtheycannotexclusionclause.2.AccordingtotheUnfairContractTermsAct1977.定义（youwillrecallfromyourpreviousstudyofthelawofcontractthatforanexclusionclause,weathervalidornot,tobeconsideredaspartoftheecontractitmustbe:“incorporated”orformpartofthecontract.ConsumercontractsforthesupplyofgoodsandservicesarecoveredbytheAct,aswellascontractsofemploymentandapprenticeship.）InSection16ofUnfairContractTermsAct1977,wecanknownthat‘anyattempttoexcludeliabilityfordeathorpersonalinjuryarisingfrombreachofanyoftheabovedutiesisvoid’.InSection20ofUCTA1977,coversattemptstoexcludeorrestrictliabilityinrelationtoimpliedtermsinSOGA1979.Aspreviouslydiscussed,anysuchclausesarevoidinaconsumercontract.Thenoticecannotexcludetheseimpliedterms.ThecontrolsimposedbytheActaremorestringentonconsumercontractsthanonbusinesstobusinesscontracts.Thestrongestpossibleprotecttheconsumer.3.UnfairTermsinConsumerContractsRegulations1999.UndertheseRegulations,aconsumercansetasideacontractforgoodsorservicesbyshowingthatthecontractisunfair.TheRegulationsapplytoanyterminacontractbetweenasellerorsupplierandaconsumerwherethetermhasnotbeenindividuallynegotiated.UnfaircontractTermAct1977haswiderapplication,becausetheActappliestoconsumercontractsandnon-consumercontracts;Againa‘reasonablenesstestisappliedwherethereisanattempttoexcludeco