Read full document


  • By
  • September 2010
  • 310 Words
Page 1 of 1
Step 1: Is the seller subject to the Trade Practices Act?
WashIt Pty Ltd who is the seller in this case is a company. Step 2: Was the buyer a consumer within s4B of the TPA?
Mary in this case is the buyer meets the definition of a consumer in section 4B of the TPA. The price of the washing machine did not exceed the prescribed amount $40000 and it was acquired for a household use. Step 3: Was the seller made in the course of business?

WashIt Pty Ltd sold the washing machine in the course of business. Step 4: Was the sale at auction?
The sale between WashIt Pty Ltd and Mary was not at auction. Therefore, the Trade Practices act applies.
Step 1-4 is met, merchantable quality and fitness for purpose becomes implied terms . A washing machine is expected to function for a reasonable amount of time given the price paid by Mary was $899. Section 75 AC (2) (d)

The drying of clothes is one of the functions that a washing machine is expected to perform. However, only after 2 months after the purchase the clothes did not dry as expected. This shows that the washing machine supplied by WashIt Pty Ltd has a defect.

section 71, 75AC, 75AE, 75AF, 75AG

The landlord is not the purchaser therefore he/she is not bound by the contract between WashIt Pty Ltd and Mary. Exemption clause does not apply. Due to the defective washing machine which caused the bursting of pipes and flooding the whole house, which resulted in a suffered of loss of structural and electrical damage by the landlord. According to section 75 AF. WashIt Pty Ltd is liable to compensate to the landlord person for the amount of the loss and the landlord may recover that amount by action against WashIt Pty Ltd.

Rate this document

What do you think about the quality of this document?

Share this document

Let your classmates know about this document and more at