Analysis of Commercial Law Situation - Essay Example

? Business Law Business Law Introduction In commercial law, consumers enjoy certain rights when they purchase goods or services fromthe sellers. A default of the consumer rights by the sellers allows the buyers to claim for compensation or cancelling of the sale contract for the damages he suffers. Accordingly, this paper undertakes a review on the rights of John as a buyer for the goods he purchased from “Sheds R Us” that caused him to undergo damages. Discussion One of the channels that illustrate the fate of John in seeking a help on his consumer rights is the consumer statutes (Tillson, 2012). One of the consumer laws in United Kingdom is stipulated under the Sales of Goods Act as of 1979. Owing to the sale transaction that the buyer and the seller underwent, a number of provisions under the statute give John a chance in seeking a legal redress on the damages he suffered. Even though John and the seller did not enter the contract to sale of the shed product in writing, the sales act under section 4 (1) recognizes that the sale can be entered in writing or orally (Tillson, 2012). At the time John bought the goods from the seller, the decision on the type of the shed to buy was based on the brochure descriptions supplied by the seller. This implied that the good that was to be supplied by the seller was strictly to be sold as described. Thus, the seller should have supplied the design of the shed that John selected among the other designs for it to be accepted. Indeed, the sales act under section 13 demands that the goods supplied to the buyers should correspond with the description of their choice (Tillson, 2012). Even though the brochure was applied as, a sample in describing the design of the shed to be supplied by the seller, the law requires that the good supplied should conform to the descriptions of the buyer under section 13(1). Consequently, the failure by the seller to supply the shed description that John described gives him the right to claim for damages from the sales contract entered. Indeed, in precedent case between Re Moore vs. Landauer, it illustrates that the goods sold under description should be supplied under the description that was given. Re Moore Company had contracted Landauer firm to supply tins packed in cases of 30 units. Landauer supplied the containers in the correct quantities but a number of them had 24 tins. Accordingly, the court ruled that the supplier violated the contract description through the packaging method described by Re Moore Company. Similarly, even though “Shed R Us” business had supplied the shed product, the seller violated the contract description since Shed D description was component of the contract. Moreover, the Arcos vs. Ronaasen ruling upheld that the failure of the seller to supply half-inch thick staves by supplying 9-16 inch thick was a violation of the contract description. The failure by “Shed R Us” business to supply a shed that fitted the description of John was violation of the sales contract that gives John the legal right to be compensated for the wrongful doing of the seller. Indeed, under the implied terms of sales contract, a failure by the seller to pass the consideration bargained by the buyer in the sales contract renders the buyer to seek the refund of the purchase price in total. Owing to the fact that John paid a price as the consideration for the shed under description D, he has the right to claim the money back (Tillson, 2012). This is because the consideration measure for acquiring the right property had failed even if shed description B had been supplied. To the extent that the good that was supplied to John was not conforming to the consideration amount paid, the consideration is considered to have failed under the implied terms of sales contract (Tillson, 2012). Section 14(2) of the sales act provides that the goods that a business sells should be of satisfactory quality. The description and price of the good is taken as the standard of a satisfactory quality for a reasonable person under the act. Accordingly, the shed product that the seller supplied to John failed to be of satisfactory quality since it did not correspond to his description. In addition, the price that John paid to be supplied with shed D is not the same price of shed B that was supplied to him. Precedent cases regarding the satisfactory quality in the sales contract has been set in protecting the buyer. In Bernstein v Pamson Motors civil case, the court ruled that buyer of a new car has the right to gain more than a buyer of a second car (Tillson, 2012). The quality of the shed John was supplied with by the seller was of shed B instead of Shed D. Thus, John has the right to claim for a shed that is of D quality under the satisfactory quality requirement. Even though the shed that was supplied to John was of merchantable quality since it could be sold to purchasers requiring Shed B description, the contract description gives John the right of rejecting the offer on minor defects. Indeed, in Kendall vs. Lillico civil case, the court was of the view that the groundnut extractions failed to be of satisfactory quality even when they could be safely fed to poultry. However, they could not be allowed to fit the satisfactory quality requirement even with their merchantable quality since they harmed pheasants that were the primary use of the product (Tillson, 2012). Consequently, failure to pass the consideration to John by the seller calls for a refund of the purchase price. This authority is derived from the precedent case involving Rowland vs. Duvall. The defendant bought a stolen car from the plaintiff unknowingly rendering him to be arrested for being in possession of a stolen. The court of appeal held that the consideration of purchasing a car had failed even though the user had used it for some time. Thus, the plaintiff was ordered to refund the whole amount of the purchase price to the defendant since the car failed to be the consideration the buyer had bargained for in the sales contract (Tillson, 2012). Similarly, the shed product that “Shed R Us” business supplied to John as the buyer was not part of the consideration John had bargained for when he entered into the contract sale of Shed D. The sales act of 1982 gives legal chance for john to reject the goods supplied by the seller since the transfer of the goods was a material breach. Section 11 of the act stipulates that the buyer should reject a transfer of goods in material breach. Furthermore, section 11 of the sales act 1982 defines material breach to the transfer of goods that fail to correspond to the description given by the buyer. Moreover, the final material upon the construction of the shed sunk in the grass bed. This shows that the seller did not take adequate care in constructing the fountain of the shed he supplied to the buyer. The collapse of the shed depicts a violation of the sales act 1982 that stipulates under section 13 that the supplier of service should undertake the duty with reasonable care and skill. In Robinson vs. Graves civil case, the court was of the view that a skill and labor are substance of a contract in the production of a portrait for the artist to pass some material to the customer. Consequently, the collapse of the shed’s fountain was due to the negligence of the seller in taking care and skill in producing a quality product. The injuries that John suffered as result of the electric hedge cutter manufactured by “Hedgeco Corporation”, is a legal violation under the consumer production act of 1987. John has the legal rights under the act to claim for compensation form Hedgeco Corporation for the injuries he suffered. Section 2 of the act provides that the product producer that causes damage should be held liable. To the extent that the manufacturer’s name appears on the electric hedge cutter that John bought, Hedgeco is the manufacture of the product. Indeed, section 2 (2b) stipulates that a person whose name or trademark is put on a product to distinguish it from other product brands, is the sole producer of the product. Thus, the defect on the product should be held liable on Hedgeco in claiming for the injuries that John suffered. The electric shock and damage of the hedge cutter implies that the product was defective when the producer supplied it in the market. Under the consumer production act, a product is considered defective if it fails to provide general safety expected by a person in personal injury or death and property damage (Tillson, 2012). Furthermore, the law provides that the product is defective if it fails to offer safety when it is used in the work it was marketed for and lacks warnings instructions on it usage. In addition, if the product causes the injuries when it is applied in the task it reasonably supposed to be applied (Tillson, 2012). The hedge cutter was marketed by the manufacture in the market for cutting grass by use of electricity. Similarly, the damage that John suffered in burning was caused by the hedge cutter since the product was been applied in the right purpose. Thus, the injuries that John suffered were caused by the defects of the product. Consequently, Hedgeco is liable for the damages that John suffered when using their product. Conclusion The consumer statutes help the consumer in accessing fair trade transactions from the traders using restrictions and obligations on both parties. The act of the seller in supplying a shed that is of wrong description can be compensated by seeking the assistance of the sales act 1979. In addition, the supply of goods and services act of 1982 helps the consumer by obliging the suppliers to undertake their services in reasonable care and skill to give a good that is of satisfactory quality. Accordingly, the supply of shed B instead of Shed D that John had requested can easily be rectified by applying the law. In addition, the collapse of the shed fountain is held on the seller for not taking reasonable care and skill in producing the material needed by John. This has also, been applied in seeking the damage compensation from the manufacture of the hedge cutter for the damage John suffered. The consumer production obliges the producer to compensate a person for the damages caused by the defect of product they produce. Reference Tillson, J. (2012). Law express: Consumer and commercial law (revision guide). London: Pearson. Read More