consumer rights

Topics: Contract, Tort, Donoghue v Stevenson Pages: 11 (4276 words) Published: November 10, 2013
Question 1: Explanation of Matt’s parents right regarding the sales of Goods Act (1979)

Under Section 12 (1) in The Sale of Goods Act (1979) the seller has the right to sell the goods when he can pass the good’s title to the buyer (rights of ownership), looking at Rowland v Divall [1923] ALL ER REP 270, the court of appeal decided that Divall has breached S.12 of SOGA and that Rowland was entitled to a full refund, as he had paid £334 for the right of ownership of the car which he had not received. In the case of Matt's football boots Nike did have the right to sell as he holds ownership of the products sold, so S.12(1) SOGA [1979] was not breached. There are two warranties under S.12(2) of SOGA that Nike had to consider, in Microbeads v Vinhurt Road Markings Ltd [1975] 1 AII ER 529, the court of appeal decided that there has been a breach of S.12(2) because the buyers did not enjoy a quiet possession of the goods, as it has being disturbed. The other warranty of S.12(2) is that the seller should let the buyer know if there are any charges or encumbrances by a third party on the goods before the contract is established. In our case there are no third parties because the football boots are made and sold by Nike, meaning that Matt and his parents will enjoy quiet possession of the football boots, this means that Nike was not in breach of S.12(2) in SOGA. In S13 of SOGA states " where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description." S13(1). In the Beale v Taylor [1967] 3 AII ER 253 case, the court of appeal decided that the defendant has breached S.13 of SOGA (1979) even though the claimant did inspect the car before the purchase, he relied on the description in the advertisement. The description of the goods may include size, quantity, weight, ingredients, and origin AND how to the goods should be packed. In Matt's case Nike did not breach this section, as the football boots are Nike boots unlike in the case Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 AII ER 737 and the Nike boots are the correctsize.

S.14 of SOGA (1979) is very relevant to Matt’s case, because it implies two conditions; the goods are of satisfactory quality and they are fit for purpose. s 14(2) clarifies:” where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality.” This is further explained in s 14 (2A) : “…goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. “. S14 (2d) states that the relevant circumstances include public statement, in the case of Nike boots, it has being made popular by footballers such as Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo, these footballers will not consider wearing any football boots that can cause injury or if they smell. This can easily influence any body that practices the sport. Consequently, Nike has breached S.14(2) of SOGA because at the time of the purchase Nike was aware of the advertisement, the advertisement was misrepresented because there was no indication that the boots can become smelly or even cause injury. Under S.14(3) of SOGA (1979) indicates: ‘ where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought.’ Looking at Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85 after Dr Grant developed dermatitis because of certain chemicals in the underpants, it was held the underpants were not in merchantable quality or reasonably fit for purpose, even though, it was only by implication that Dr Grants intended to wear the underpants. Similarly to Matt’s case, it was by implication that the football boots will be worn to...

Bibliography: :
Bermin (2008) Negligence: duty of care [Online]. Available at: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199227983/bermingham_ch04.pdf (Accessed: 8 Januaru 2012)
Elliot, C. Quinn,F.(2007) Contract law , 6th ed. Essex : Pearson Education Limited
Shoderu, R. (2012) Introduction to Business Law. Essex: Pearson Education Limited
My Law chamber( No date) Chapter 2: Negligence: elements of the tort [Online]. Available at: http://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/uploads/M02_ELLI8149_08_SE_C02FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 8 January 2012)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrVNPmzXH0E&feature=related
Continue Reading

Please join StudyMode to read the full document

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Consumer Protection in Singapore Essay
  • Chapter 8: Dealing with Consumers Essay
  • Consumer Protection Act Essay
  • Australian Consumer Law Essay
  • Australian Consumer Law Essay
  • consumer Essay
  • Business Studies
  • Australian Consumer Law Tutorial Answers Essay

Become a StudyMode Member

Sign Up - It's Free