Business Law - Case Study Example

 Introduction Under the sale of goods Act, the legal relationship between the buyer and the seller accepts to pass the property in merchandise from trader to the buyer. The terms of the covenant may provide for the requirements between the contracting parties upon which both parties must adhere to (Alghamdi, 65). The law also gives express conditions for the sale of goods between the buyer and the seller. As a general rule, it is the duty of the seller to pass the ownership of property in the merchandise to the buyer. The purpose of the law is to protect either of the parties against fraud by the other party (Goode, 486). The seller must ensure the goods are of the required description by the buyer or will serve the intended purpose. On the other hand, the buyer must agree to take the possession of the goods and pay the dues appropriately. Guarantee for Use of Good Although the contract is between the trader and the client, the client has a lawful chance to make claim against the producer and the trader who sold merchandise to him or her (Alghamdi, 74). This occurs in the event where the merchandise fails to meet the purpose for which it was intended. For example, El, Hajji Mohammed had bought a washing machine which had a flaw. While using it for the right purpose, the gadget broke down and caused serious physical harm to the buyer. If Mohammed places a legal suit against the manufacturer and the seller, he is likely to succeed because the gadget did not meet the quality of the purpose for which it was intended purpose. Express and Implied Warranties Under the law of agreement for the sale of goods, it is the duty of the seller to ensure that the merchandise sold to the clients is of the right quality for the right purpose (Alghamdi, 79). The washing machine which Mr. Mohammed had bought was meant for washing garments. It was supposed to be connected to electric power. Therefore, the fact that it had faulty switch which exploded and harmed the client implies that the gadget was not fit for the precise use. Therefore, Mr. Mohammed had a right to sue E&Z Electronics Company who had fabricated the gadget. Producer’s and Trader’s Negligence The business law imposes direct and indirect terms of agreement between the buyer and he seller. Under the express terms, the parties agree on specific terms (Alghamdi, 103). However, under implied terms the trader is required to have an idea of reason for which the buyer is buying a product. In this case, both the manufacturer and the trader were aware of the right use for the washing machine. Therefore, the client had right to claim for compensation because trader and the manufacturer had infringed his right of use of washing machine. Remedy The law requires the trader and the producer to exercise owed care since this is the area of their specialization (Alghamdi, 108). In this case, it can be assumed that the buyer relied on the knowledge of the seller and the producer when purchasing the gadget. It is therefore immaterial that the buyer did not check the quality because he may have relied on the experience of the seller and manufacturer to deliver the required commodity. Contributory Negligence of the Buyer Mr. Mohammed is entitled to monetary compensation for the harm cause in the ordinary use of the product from the manufacturer. He is also entitled to have his washing machine replaced with flawless gadget which can serve the intended purpose (Goode, 567). When purchasing a product, the buyer must take time to consider the quality of the product he or she is about to buy. The buyers must ensure they are of the right quality and will serve the purpose they are intended for. They should also inform the traders of the intended purpose for which the property will be used (Goode, 503). They should not assume that the seller knows the use for which they will put their commodity because some commodities have different application. It is their duty to ensure they get what they wanted to avoid future controversies. As such, they should take time to have the gadget tested by the trader to prove that it will function as required. Cause of Merchandise Injury The consumer must prove that the gadget broke down as a result manufacturer’s flaw. If the gadget broke down as a result of buyer’s negligence, then he does not deserve any compensation (Goode, 478). Therefore, it is the role of Mohammed to prove to the court that the washing machine indeed malfunctioned during its usual operation, and that it harmed the user after breaking down. Product Modification by the Producer The producers should apply their knowledge to ensure that the products they make are safe to their consumers. They have a duty of responsibilities to their consumers and should therefore fabricate gadgets which will serve the functions they were meant for by the users and which shall not cause harm to the users during their ordinary use (Alghamdi, 124). If there is evidence that the producer is responsible for the breakdown and eventual harm caused by gadget, then the producer is liable for the defect and should compensate the consumer for the harm. The producer should also replace the faulty switch and those of all unsold washing machines to ensure the safety of all users. Traders Liability It is the responsibility of the sellers to ensure goods delivered to the clients are fit for the right function. They should also guarantee safety to the users. They have a duty to confirm the functionality of the product and potential to serve the right purpose before their deliver their property to their clients. Therefore, they should not transfer manufacturers fault to consumers (Alghamdi, 122). They should purchase their products from reliable manufacturers in order to protect the consumers. Buying poor quality for resale to consumers is fraud and deserves legal penalty. Courts Remedy Mohammed is entitled to enjoy utility of the gadget according to his original intention at the time of purchase. The commodity should not cause harm to the user during ordinary usage. Should this occur where it is proven that the consumer was not careless in any way, the client deserves monetary compensation appropriate to the physical injuries suffered (Goode, 435). At the same time, he should have a replacement made for the washing machine to ensure he gets the right of use for the gadget in accordance to his plan. Conclusion The commercial law protects the clients against traders and manufacturers who may fabricate and sell commodities of lesser value. The merchandise should be fit for the use it was intended for by the client and should also guarantee them safety during ordinary use. If the client is not given what they deserve they may sue both producer and trader to get compensated for damage caused their bodies. They should also have replacement of the faulty merchandise with secure and superior quality merchandise. Works Cited Alghamdi, Abdulhadi, M. The Law of E-commerce, E-contract, E-business. Author House, United States of America, 2011. 56-122 Goode, Royston M., and McKendrick, Ewan, Commercial Law, 2010. LexisNexis, 1433 Read More