Sales of Goods Act of 1979 - Nike - Essay Example

?Introduction The problems which have occurred with the football boots made by Nike come from the faulty materials which were used with the product. The problem is one which is leading to several not being able to use the shoes as well as other associations which only allow one to wear the shoes once or not at all. It has been found that the football shoes have this defect because of the cotton which is placed underneath the shoes, not allowing the correct breathing to occur with the shoe and leading to additional smells. The legal implications which are associated with the faulty shoe move beyond the basic default which causes the shoes to be unusable. This is furthered with legal implications and how this relates to the negligence used with making the boot. Problems experienced within this case study, such as the inability to use the boot and the foot rot which has been experienced all imply that further legal actions need to be considered while certain rights are understood based on the situation. Sales of Goods Act of 1979 The first implication which is based on the particular case study with Nike comes from the Sales of Goods Act of 1979. According to this act, there are a formation of rules and contracts that are associated with the obligations between the buyer and seller. In this particular act, there are rights and duties which are carried forward by the parties who are selling the goods to an individual. The rules are based on the expectation that the seller provides the buyer with the transfer of goods in exchange for cash. The contract of sale is then made which can either be absolute or conditional. The sales of goods have to follow specifications that relate to the goods carrying standards. In this instance, the standards require that the products carry the necessary conditions to be used by a minor or other person, specifically with requirements of the sale and delivery being available for use by the minor or other person. Goods that have perished become void under the contract, specifically when they perish right before or during the sale (UK Legislation, 2011: 1). More important, the quality and fitness of the sale needs to be determined. There are no technical specifications about what the quality should be inclusive of. However, it is implied that all goods carry a satisfactory quality, including appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability. Under the conditions that this does not occur, the buyer has the right to a partial rejection, meaning that if the goods are not satisfactory, there is the choice to accept or reject the goods. The rights are also inclusive of repairing or replacing goods which are not holding the necessary quality and fitness as advertised or expected. However, the buyer can only ask for repairmen or replacing of the goods if it is not an inconvenience to the buyer and is done within a given time frame. This is also dependent on the goods not costing more than the original purchase, unless compensation is made under the buyer. If this occurs, then there needs to be an evaluation of the condition of the goods, how they were acquired and the changes which are required. The conditions not being met may also lead to a reduced price or rescission of the contract. If there are damages or non – delivery, than the matter can be taken to court in which the seller must pay the difference of the problem (UK Legislation, 2011: 1). According to the Sales of Goods Act 1979, there is the ability to replace, repair or return the damaged items within a given time frame. This is because the quality and fitness of the product is not satisfactory, including a lack of safety and durability as well as defects to the product. The right of the buyer is based on receiving a refund or having a replacement from the seller. The rescission of the contract and the payment of the difference are required because of the faulty aspects of the shoes. This is furthered with the requirements of the contract that become conditional because of this. The conditions of this are specific to the product not being safe for a minor, making it a faulty product that should not be accepted because of the lack of quality and the product perishing right after purchase. In the case study, it was noted that the smell began after one wore the shoes once and sometimes before one wore the shoes. This makes the goods perishable and unable to fulfill the contract of meeting basic standards with the goods, making the contract void for the purchase of the shoes. Tort Law and Negligence to Foot Rot The Tort Law is one which applies to the foot rot experienced from the shoes and the negligence which this shows from the faulty shoes. The main approach of the Tort Law shows that an injustice based on negligence of another party causes another individual to become harmed or injured. The right of the individual is to receive compensation for the loss because of the harm or injury. The approach is one which allows the injured person to receive compensation, usually in the form of monetary options to recover from the damage which was received. The Tort Law is furthered with the product liability which occurs from the needed compensation. A manufacturing or design defect, as well as the failure to warn about a product all lead to compensation given to the buyer. In this case, the product liability did not occur at fault and was a faulty mistake by the production of the shoes. However, the outcome of injury or loss makes the company liable in terms of compensation because of the foot rot which has occurred. The problem with the product and the liability is furthered with the problem being a part of the minor who is suffering from the problem, specifically because of the faulty materials that were given to the individual. The liability includes personal loss, both personal and mental. The personal comes from the foot rot while the mental is inclusive of not being able to play football while being subjected to the comments of others on the team because of the shoes (Horsey, Rackley, 2009: 11). A case study which reflects the rights of the individual from product liability is Wikinson v. Downton. In this particular case, Wilkinson was the landlord of a public house. Downton decided to play a practical joke on Wilkinson’s wife while her husband was out by stating that her husband had been injured at a horse race. The consequence was that Wilkinson’s wife began to vomit and led into more serious physical consequences that threatened her mental capacity, specifically from nervous shock. This occurred without Wilkinson having any past inflications with nervous shock. In return, Downton had to be 10 ? d for the physical harm and mental shock. A second case which shows a similar sense of negligence is Rylands v. Fletcher. In this instance, Rylands was constructing near a reservoir. There was an old mine and coal which was found, which Rylands neglected. The reservoir flooded and burst the mine for construction, leading to a large amount of damage and injury. Rylands was liable for the damages because of negligence of the actions, leading specifically to the basis of the Tort Law (Bermingham, Brennin, 2008). Both of these instances are reflective of the rights which are associated with Nike and the liability of the product which is owed to the negligence created. The negligence of the company to change the products is one which could have been prevented. Nike is aware of the types of materials which are required for sports shoes, specifically because it is one of the leading manufacturers. There was also awareness that the cotton is one which absorbed different components, making it one which shouldn’t be used with the sports goods. However, this was used and neglected, leading to the problems with physical and mental excursion. The foot rot, inability to play on the football team and the other dysfunctions associated with the shoe led into a different component with the negligence of the shoes and the problems created in terms of the product negligence. The rights of the family are based on monetary compensation based specifically because of negligence to the outcome of the product and outcomes to mental and physical health which occurred. Binding Contracts to Products The one area which is associated with the product that may come into the partition with the product is from the binding contracts. When there is a seller and buyer agreement, this becomes a legally binding contract in which one sells a product for a specific amount of money. The contract which is created between the customer and the service provider becomes legally binding, whether through an oral statement or basic terms and conditions that are associated with the company. The contract is based on the agreement to buy and sell the product to a customer and from a company. However, the contract also enforces that a specific standard is associated with the product which is sold, specifically which is associated with the terms and conditions of the company. In these terms and conditions, there are stipulations based on the return of the product and the obligation of returning an item within a given time frame if it is not correct. The contract also relates to the liabilities which may follow this and the responsibility of the liabilities which are associated with the contract (Slawson, 1996). The terms and conditions with the products then directly relate to the binding contracts which are associated with Nike products. The terms and conditions state that purchases are final upon sale. If there are refunds to be made then this must occur through the point of purchase otherwise all sales are final. There is no ability to exchange products based on size, fit or selection. To alter this, a consumer has the right to have an inspection of the product. If this is approved, then a credit is given to the Nike credit store for an alternative purchase. For a return or credit to be warranted, an inspection must be made with claim numbers that state the faulty item and why it is being returned. If the inspection is approved then a voucher is given. This is only warranted if there is a material or manufacturing flaw. However, these must be received before 2 years of purchase from the manufacturing date (Nike, 2011). While this is the particular terms and conditions with Nike, it is based and warranted on the understanding that the products do not have faulty materials. According to Tort Law, Nike is liable for the product if there are faulty materials from the manufacturing process or basic materials used. In this instance, the design is defective because of the lack of responsibility taken with the manufacturing of the product. This makes the problem a part of the Nike contract to deliver a specific level of products to those that is working with the materials. While the terms and conditions work effectively with the Nike approaches to the market, there are still gaps because of the product liabilities which Nike holds. The binding contract that is associated outside of the terms and conditions then makes the inspection process a part of the contract. The material and manufacturing flaw found allows the claim to move into a rebate for an alternative purchase given to the individual making the claim. In this instance, the inspection will show the faulty manufacturing and materials, making Nike liable for the problem and leading to a voucher for an alternative purchase. The limitations to the terms and conditions as well as the legally binding contracts with Nike are based specifically on the accountability for the items by the consumer. However, the faulty instance of the shoes also leads to the materials and manufacturing that led to the problem. This makes Nike liable for the product that is created as well as a voucher that is received in return for the product. The contracts which are associated with the products by Nike create the accountability not only by the binding procedures but also relate to the common regulations that are associated with different storefronts. The terms and conditions of Nike only move a step further because of the outcomes which occurred. The foot rot that Nike had as well as the inability to uphold agreements that the products have a specific standard creates a different level of product liability. This moves outside of the binding contract. After retrieving the inspection and other aspects, there is the ability to move forward with other legalities that are based on not only the Nike contract but also which are relevant to the UK law and the expectations which are associated with product liabilities and responsibilities within a corporation. The binding contract is one which moves through the specific process with the terms and conditions which are associated with Nike and the retrieval of the different items and expectations within the law. As long as this particular part of the law is withheld, showing that the lack of design and manufacturing was a part of the contract, then the individuals can chose to take further action under the UK law that move into the product liability which is taken. This is based on the individual upholding the enforceable agreement that is provided by the company. The company then becomes liable for the extra problems which occurred from the product, specifically making them liable for the other problems that are associated with the product. This leads to a disclaimer of the terms and conditions falling under the UK law before it falls under the litigations that are associated with the terms and conditions of the company. This particular part of the negotiation is able to develop different levels of rights under the binding contract between the seller and buyer and the expectation that the legalities of UK law are applicable before other considerations (Collins, 2003). Conclusion The concepts of legalities and different rights are based on the relationships between the consumer and seller. The obligation is taken with the informal or formal contract which relates from the buyer to the seller about the condition of products and the liability which the company has toward the products. In the instance of Nike, the product liability was not withheld, specifically because the design and the manufacturing process were done in negligence, causing for problems to arise. The problem of not being able to wear the shoes as well as the foot rot which occurred leads to other rights by the consumer, specifically because of Tort Law and the consumer rights toward goods. These allow the consumer to gain monetary rights for the physical and mental damage which has accrued, specifically because of the product liability which was held. This application to the law arises even though there were binding contracts and terms and conditions under Nike. The association is based on the right for the consumer to receive a product which upholds to specific standards and expectations used with the given purchase. References Bermingham, V, Carol Brennan. 2011. Tort Law. UK: Oxford University Press. Collins, H. 2003. The Law of Contract. UK: Oxford University Press. Nike. 2011. “Terms and Conditions.” Retrieved January 10, 2012 from: http://nikeinc.com/pages/creating-a-footwear-claim. UK Legislation. 2011. “Sales of Goods Act 1979.” Retrieved January 10, 2012 from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54. Slawson, WD. 1996. Binding Promises: The Late 20th Century Reformation of Contract Law. UK: Routledge. Read More