Paul Price as a Consumer and Tefal Actifry as the Seller - Essay Example

? Law Case Study Question one Paul Price in this case study is the buyer/ consumer while Tefal Actifry is the seller. According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the buyer, Paul Price, is subjected to particular rights as the consumer. Tefal Actifry is also protected by the provisions of the Act that details the rights of the seller. In sale of goods and supply of services the Act describes some basic provisions which are implied by the statute so that protection can be provided to purchasers. In section 12, the Sale of Goods Act protects buyers where a seller lacks thee the right to sell goods to them. In section 13, there is a provision that where the goods are sold with description of the same good, it is implied that the good will obviously correspond to the stated description. For instance, Tefal Actifry sold the good to Paul Price by description. The good was therefore implied to correspond to the accorded descriptions by Tefal Actifry. The failure resulted into the breach of the implied terms in section 13 of the Sale of Good Act 1979. Section 14 provides that business people ensure that their goods are of satisfactory fit and quality for their purpose. Tefal Actifry although described the good as satisfactory and safe, the good turned out to be disastrous, however, and other similar goods sold to other consumers proved of good quality and safety (Stewart 1998). Therefore if Tefal Actifry had included a clause limiting their liability, this is the point where it would have relied on the clause to avoid complications with the buyer, Paul Price. Paul price should be aware that when one buys a good, he or she enters into a contract with the seller. The goods purchased must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. The buyer, Paul Price, is provided with different protections when purchasing a good under contract law. Paul Price should be aware that he got into a contract with Tefal Actifry immediately he accepted and paid for the good. There may be concurrent liability for the manufacturer in the law of tort should goods which are faulty result into any significant harm or injury to the buyer, his or her property, but the buyer’s primary rights under the contract of sale lies with the retailer (Mark 2003). According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, there are four major protections accorded to the buyer: the seller must possess the right of sale over the good (section 12), the goods that are sold with descriptions have to correspond to the given descriptions (section 13), the good sold must have a quality that is satisfactory enough (section 14), and in section 15, all goods sold by a sample must correspond to the quality of the sample. Paul Price should be aware of the above and observe with sound mind any breach of those protection and sue where necessary because Tefan Actifry is liable to the breach of any of those four provisions (Van 2001). Paul Price should know that the mentioned protections are statutory implied terms. Therefore the Sale of Goods Act will have to put those terms into contract of the goods sold regardless of what the agreed terms and conditions of the sale that the parties have agreed on themselves. The buyer, Paul Price, should be informed that a contract is just for provided goods sold. It is a transfer ownership of the goods sold for the money exchanged. Therefore if the seller, Tefal Actifry, breaches any of the provided terms, the statutory rights of the buyer, Paul Price, then the buyer is entitled to a remedy (Mark 2003). Therefore, Paul Price is entitled to a remedy by Tefal Actifry because of the breach of Paul’s statutory right provided in section 13 that the goods sold by description have to meet correspond to the given description. Tefal Actifry gave description of his good during the sale and it turned out otherwise, therefore he is liable to the damages that resulted from the good contrary to what he gave as the description during the sale (Stewart 1998). Tefal Actifry stated during the sale of the Actifry that “…If you like chips with everything - and a lot of us do - then the Actifry ought to be just what you're looking for.” He even adds that it is a shallow fryer that cooks food of low fat and it is easy to clean and safe. In the end, Paul’s parents, Dave and Sandra had different experience. Other users like Jeremy Patrick seemed to have just the same story. This means Tefal ACtifry gave a wrong description and hence liable for the damages experienced due to the use of his fryers. Paul Price should therefore go ahead and sue Tefal for damages. This was seen in the case of Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564, Arcos v Ranaason [1933] AC 470 and Re Moore & Landauer [1921] 2 KB (Deakin 2008). Question two The reason why Sandra is not able to work in her garden and Dave missing at work is the burns and lung infection from smoke inhalation. There kitchen will also be redecorated because of the smoke from the faulty Actifry chip fryer. This means there was negligence in the part of Tefal. He gave descriptions that never corresponded to the fryers he sold to Paul Price. Obviously, it could have not been a coincident that all the fryers sold to Paul Price were among the 0.4 percent of the fryers that reported faulty according to Tefal. Therefore, both Dave and Sandra should go ahead and sue Tefal over negligence on the safety of the fryers committed by Tefal on when he breached the duty to care he owed to them over their safety when using the fryer. In relation to this, the law of tort describes the principles governing negligence on the part of Dave and Sandra. In this respect, Dave and Sandra ought to know what negligence amounts to under the tort law. Negligence is characterized by behavior that results into unreasonable risks of injury, harm or damage to persons and property. A person is said to act negligently when his or her behavior deviates from the ordinary conduct expected under the circumstances of a reasonable and prudent person. Generally, the law of tort requires that jurors use life experience and common sense when determining the appropriate degree of vigilance and care by which people have to lead their lives in order to avoid putting safety of other persons at risk. Therefore, negligence is a tort that depends on the proof of existence of breach of duty to care owed a particular individual to another person. Fro instance in the famous case of Donoghue v Stevenson (Deakin 2008). Dave and Sandra should be able to identify the elements that determine the liability of negligence. These elements provided indicates that the plaintiff must be owed a duty of care, there must be breach or dereliction of the duty to care, the tort feasor must have caused the injury directly in such away that if not for the action of the defendant, the plaintiff could have not experienced harm or injury, the plaintiff must suffer harm or damage due to the breach of duty owed to him or her, and the damage must not be remote, there must be a proximate cause (Van 2001). From these elements, it is obvious that Tefal committed negligence on his side. If he disclosed the danger of the fryer, may be the harm would have not occurred. The negligence committed meets all the above provisions of what makes up negligence in the law of tort. Therefore Dave and Sandra should go ahead and sue Tefal for damages and get compensated (Crane 2003). The law of tort observes some basic objectives to which negligence has affected, Dave and Sandra. Tort law will compensate Dave and Sandra for the damages due to the inaction or culpable action of Tefal. Tort will also shift the damage costs and the price of injury to Tefal who is responsible for inflicting the injury on Dave and Sandra. The law of tort will also discourage Tefal from careless, risky, and injurious behavior in the future. Finally, tort law will vindicate the interests and legal rights diminished, compromised or emasculated. Dave and Sandra will be required to establish that Tefal was actually under the legal duty to care. They will also have to prove that Tefal breached this duty through failing to inform them of the danger of the fryer accordingly. Finally, the two victims will have to prove that they suffered damage, injury or loss as a result of Tefal’s breach of duty owed to them. The major remedy against tortuous damage or loss is compensation in money. Tort law tolerates self help in a limited range of cases for example practical force to exorcise a trespasser. This is particularly a defense against battery tort. The courts may grant injunction sometimes in a continuing tort case, or where harm is simply threatened. This may mean a command by the court for anything other than money such as restraining the threat of harm or continuance (Crane 2003). Question three Paul Price agreed to buy the fryers from Tefal and made payment for the same under the descriptions given by Tefal on the functionality of the fryers. Paul therefore, according to the law of contract, entered into a legally binding contract with Tefal immediately he accepted the offer and made payment for the goods. This is because Paul Price had accepted the fryers with the descriptions stated and made payment in ownership transfer from Tefal to him. According to the European Contract Law revised in1998 chapter 2 section 1, a contract is complete and concluded all the parties intend to be legally bound and if the parties have adequately reached an agreement that is sufficient without any further requirements. This is what happened between Paul and Tefal. Therefore the two entered into an agreement the moment they agreed on the terms of sale and made a transfer of ownership upon payment. This is a similar case of what was observed in the famous case of United Group Rail Services Limited v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 177; (2009) 74 NSWLR 618 and the case of Saleh v Romanous [2010] NSWCA 274 (Angell 1997). The law of contract however has several provisions for both Paul Price and Tefal that either of the party may observe to determine the role played in the contract of sale. Paul Price may also consider the principles of the law of contract to determine when he bonded himself to the contract with Tefal and some of the remedies possible due to false information given to him by Tefal before the agreement were concluded. A person who has concluded a contract after relying on false or incorrect information offered or given it by another party may decide to recover damages according to Article 4:117(2) and (3). Any statement given by either party when or before the conclusion of the contract is treated as leading to a contractual obligation if in case the other party reasonably understood it in that manner in the circumstances (Angell 1997). That is what Tefal did to Paul. He gave wrong information about the safety of the fryer and Paul understood it that way and entered into a contract of sale with him due to that. This is the information Tefal gave to Paul, “…its shallow fryer cooks food that's low fat, is easy to clean, and they say, 'safe'.” Paul got it straight and made the payment, but it later turned out to be most unsafe than even the stove he was talking about initially. It is hence evident that Paul entered into a contract with Tefal immediately they made the agreement on the sale. The acceptance of the offer made by Tefal to Paul automatically bonded them in a legal agreement. It is however vital to Paul to note that any party is free to enter into any contract then determine the contents subject to the elements of fair dealing, good faith, and the mandatory rules that are established by the principles of the law of the contract. The parties derogate from or exclude the appliance or vary the effects of the contract except if the principles provide otherwise. Bibliography Angell, M. 1997. Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case. New York: W. W. Norton. Crane, M. 2003. Sale of Goods Act and its premises: Columbus Dispatch. London: SAGE. Deakin, J. 2008. Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mark, L. 2003. Tort Law - Texts, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982   Stewart, M. 1998. Tort Law. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Van, G. 2001. Cases, Materials and Text on National Supranational and International Tort Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. Read More