Analysis of Sale of Goods Act (SGA) - Assignment Example

Business law: Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Sale of Goods Act (SGA) of 1895 has six parts that address several issues. The first part is the contract part. It addresses matters dealing with sales of goods and properties by individuals, agreement to sale property or goods to non consumer buyers. It has however defined sales contract as a situation where an individual agrees to give up ownership of property or goods for exchange of money. The money to be exchanged for goods has been called price. There are two types of contracts, absolute contract and conditional contract. If at the point of agreement the goods are transferred from the seller to the buyer, it is considered as the sales contract while in a situation whereby there is a set of conditions to be fulfilled before the goods can be transferred; it is called agreement to sale. Agreement to sale will only become sale when the condition stated in the agreemtn is fulfilled within the time frame agreed upon. It also has some formalities to be adhered to. Sales contract can be oral, written or both as long as both parties agree. It also outlines some condition under which this Act is applicable. It out lined several condition which guide the buyer and the seller of goods in contract environment. The Act has provided some guidelines for the ascertainment of the price of goods. It goes ahead to outline the valuation details where prices have not been agreed upon by the parties in question. Preaching of contracts and warranties has not been forgotten in the Act. The Act provides that in a situation where the goods cannot be transferred to the buyer before the buyer ascertains the property and the goods in them. If the buyer has ascertained the goods, the goods can be transferred as per the agreement of both parties from the buyer to the seller. Several issues here though have to be considered among them is the prevailing circumstances and agreement in the contract among others. Processing of goods to make sure that it is in a deliverable state must be completed by the concerned party before they are transferred to the buyer where such is stipulated in the contract. The case of Bob and Colin’s Hardware Stores We have been give this case in the question where Bob Barlow, a licensed builder, was building six houses at Port Coogee Marina, located South-West of Perth. Bob entered a written contract with Colin’s Hardware Store in Ottawa to purchase twelve hundred meters of Mahogany floorboards, nine hundred kilograms of gravel and the old stain glass window advertised on Colin’s web site. He also ordered six shade sails to be erected in the gardens of those six properties, subject to approval by the Coogee Town Council. Bob has now become bankrupt and the passing of property has become an issue Bob is the buyer in the transaction. He has the intention of buying a list of items that have been listed. He has gone ahead to writing a contract to buy goods with his potential supplier. Colin’s Hardware Stores are the seller of the properties listed. He has made a contract with his customer who has already ordered the goods. The contract is awaiting both to act, Colin’s Hardware Stores to deliver the goods to Bob and Bob is expected to make the payment. we cannot tell if the goods in the question are attached to any condition or the contract conditional all we know is there are some goods to be sold by Colin’s Hardware Stores to Bob, we are also informed that the two principals are have already entered a written contract. It is evident from the above statement that the case of Bob and Colin’s Hardware Stores falls under the jurisdiction of the Sales of Goods Act. The contract for has does not have issues to be solved however, it provides a foundation of the case. According to the statement give, bob is bankrupt and has not paid for the goods he had ordered from the Stores. The condition provided by the Act (Part III) delivery of goods should be concurrent with payment. It has however assigned the seller the duty to deliver goods and also assigned the buyer the duty to make the payment upon delivery. It has not however fixed this condition; it has opened an avenue to the contract of sales. That if at any point the contract entered details of payment whatever that is in the contract will be followed. While the process of passing of property has four general steps, the most basic of them is the ascertaining of goods prior to entering a contract to purchase of goods. The second is the statutory presumptions, this give the rules guiding the entering of contract and the rules guiding the passing of property in the event of buying of a property or goods by the buyer and the sales. The last rule guides the buyer on the situation when they should accept or reject property that has been delivered by the seller. According to the rules governing the passing of property, the basic rules that should be observed in the event of passing of a property from the initial owner who is the seller to the buyer should be the following: upon the agreement of the seller and the buyer to pass property, property will be passed from the seller to the buyer only and only if the buyer have ascertained the goods in the property. Otherwise no agreement can be valid if the buyer has not ascertained the goods. It is good to make contract after the buyer has ascertained the goods and only the goods that are ascertained that will appear in the contract. Ascertainment can be done by both the seller and the buyer or they can agree to send someone who will represent the interest of both parties. The goods can be passed from the seller to the buyer in a contract which is unconditional any time as long as the goods and the property are in deliverable state. This can be done even if date of payment of the price of goods is postponed or even if the date the date of delivery of the goods is postponed. Where the contract is conditional and therefore there is something that has been bound to goods, unless the binding factor is fulfilled, the goods cannot be in a deliverable state. This is should be adhered to. If the buyer wishes to ascertain some factors of the goods, the goods can only be passed once he has ascertained the factors especially if the factors in question are part of what will determine the price of goods etc. At the point the goods and the property is being passed from the seller to the buyer, the goods can be rejected or accepted by the buyer. Property or goods can be rejected if they are damaged by the time the buyer receives them. This sometimes can happen in the event when the goods or the property has already been passed. This still allows the buyer to reject the property or the goods if they are defect. Colin’s store falls under the unpaid seller because if in the contract both the buyer and the seller agreed to write the contract, that is, the payment was to be done on the date of delivery of goods and the transaction ended. If in the event the goods are not paid for, the goods have been delivered and the buyer is bankrupt and therefore cannot pay for them as in the case of the two parties. The act tries to give some solutions. (Part IV) which deals with the rights of the unpaid sellers against goods, provides for two types of the unpaid seller. A seller who has not been paid yet the buyer has taken goods or simply the goods have been delivered and unpaid seller who is still in possession of the goods. For the case of Bob and Colin’s Hardware Stores case, we cannot tell from the statement if the goods have been delivered or if the goods are stills in Colin’s Hardware Stores. If the goods have already been the delivered the act gives Colin’s Hardware Stores the option of consulting the law. If however the goods have not been delivered the act gives Colin’s Hardware Stores the mandate to retain the goods till the buyer who in our case is Bob pays for them. The Act (part III, section 39 (c)) give the seller the mandate to stop delivery of goods if the buyer has been declared bankrupt. If he has parted with goods already and the goods are in transit, he is given the mandate to stop goods in transit and repossess them If he buyer is insolvent and cannot be able to pay for the goods, and if the same buyer possesses some documents that are an evident that they possess the goods, he selling of goods to the third party is the will mean that the seller cannot repossess the goods even if the goods are on transit. The ownership of goods will be transferred to third party who bought from the supposed buyer. However the initial seller of the goods will have the implication of the law and can sue the buyer so that the law will take charge of the situation. The letter Dear Joe, This is an advice letter concerning the adulterated customer who bought goods in your premises and was poisoned and hospitalized. The supplier of these goods is landing you in trouble which to some extent you should not be counted responsible mess. This is even worse when we are dealing with the law of Australia which doesn’t follow the firms that are outside the country but goes for the nearest available person that is the supplier of goods. However consider that there is a four process of passing of goods which you and your customer should always follow in the process of acquiring goods. The processes require that you adhere to them. It is very important according the first step that you ascertain the goods that you purchase. All contracts should be entered upon ascertaining the goods that you were supposed to purchase. You can always do it yourself or send someone on your behalf to do ascertain the goods for you. The quality of goods should be tested in this process to ensure that you do not buy defective goods. The commercial law allows you to test the goods so that you will buy the goods that you have already ascertained the quality and the quantity to avoid unnecessary buying of defective goods. However for the customer who has already bought goods from you premises; I mean the one who found a piece of glass in a jar of marinated Feta cheese, it is important that you apologize to the customer, retrieve the product and use the evidence to sue the manufacturing company. However you still can reject stock from the manufacturer that is still in you premises and demand compensation. The ghee from Greece and has found that the goods are defective you can retrieve the goods and sue the manufacture of the, I know is likely to sue you to court for selling defective goods. From the Practices Act 1974 (Cth) in (section 74 part 4, (a) and (b)), the firm which import goods from a manufacturer who is outside the country and the manufacturer doesn’t have its own premises in Australia, he will take the responsibility of the manufacturer and he will take the responsibility of all the cases pertaining to goods that he imported will be. Joe from this statement, the ground for operation of this case is not that friendlier because, for one, you will take the responsibility of the manufacturer if the client sues you. The act state that the corporation manufacturing good or suppliers who stand on their behalf, you included will compensate the consumer if the quality of goods doesn’t meet consumer quality standards or are defective in a way. This also applies where consumer buys the goods and the goods don’t meet consumer’s requirements. In the act the subsection74b (2) give an avenue for the persons who is not an agent of the company that produces defective goods. If the person is a simple business man not having any strings attached to the company then the person is not liable to the problems associated with manufactures outside Austria. The much you can do now is get a smart lawyer who will be able to explain that you are just a business person who happened to purchase goods from foreign company that produced defective goods and out of ignorance you happened to sell the goods to innocent consumers. The court should however understand that you are not attached to the manufacturer. In any case they should know that they are not of you favorites and it is only by accident that you fall into their hands. You might escape all the judges however might be little bit trick to escape the fact that you should compensate the victim of the poison. References Western Australia (September, 2010) Sales of Goods Act of 1895; Retrieved on April, 28th, 2011. From; www.slp.wa.gov.au, Fontaine, T. W: Sales of goods; passing of property: Retrieved on April, 28th, 2011 From www.commercial/law/passing/property.pdf Government of Australia: Office of Legislative Drafting, Attorney-General’s Department, Canberra (July, 2004) Trade Practices Act 1974. Retrieved on April, 28th, 2011 from: www.commercials/law/ TradePrac1974Vol1 Read More