Conformity with the Contract of Sale - Essay Example

?Running head: Contract Law Introduction In a contract law, there are two types of terms that are the express terms and the implied terms. Express terms generally mean the terms that in specific have been mentioned orally or in writing and agreed upon by both parties involved in the contract during the time when the contract is being made. On the other hand, implied terms are different from expressed terms. Both parties may have not mentioned these implied terms in the contract. However, sometimes they are included because the contract would not make any sense commercially without them. The verbal agreement When buying the van, you stated that you wanted a van that could carry around four to five large items of furniture. You also stated that the previous van that you used to carry could handle loads of ton up to one tone and a cubic capacity of 200 feet. However, the seller did not meet the conditions that you stated. He stated that he had a van like this but it is clear evident that he did not meet your expectations. According to section 14(3) of the sales act of goods, it clearly states that if the buyer expresses his purpose of the goods understood to the seller, then it is the duty of the seller to make sure that the goods, which will be given, fit the purpose that is intended. It should be noted that if it is reasonable for the buyer to rely on the expertise of the seller then would the terms apply (Sales of Acts goods 1979). Therefore, the seller, who is Alan Daly, needs to compensate you for that. Additionally, in the verbal agreement, when you telephoned Mr. Alan Daly, he ascertained that he would look at the complications of the vehicle if it were delivered to him before the end of the week. This means that you had to deliver the vehicle before the week ended. However, you failed to do so. Instead, you did not telephone Mr. Alan Daly to notify him that you could not take the van to his garage and that you should both fix a suitable day for the vehicle to be examined. The written terms In the contract, it is evident that the seller, which in this case was Mr. Alan Daly, wanted to evade himself from problems, which he knew were to emerge eventually in the contract. In addition, he gave you the wrong capacity of the car. In clause 4(b), he stated, “any warranty or condition as to the condition, description, quality or fitness for particular purpose is hereby excluded from this contract for sale”. This is clearly evident that both parties, that is you, Mr. Winston and Mr. Alan agreed that there were no warranties of the car to be returned regardless of any major issue occurring. However, the verbal agreement that you had with Mr. Alan clearly out do the written terms (Atiyah et al. 2010). The oil leak It is obvious that Mr. Alan sold you a car that did not meet the requirements of the vehicle that you wanted. Concerning the oil leakage, upon you, Mr. Winston inspecting the vehicle, you noticed a small patch of oil on the forecourt where the van was standing. However, when Alan was asked, he said that the oil spill had occurred probably when they had topped up the oil and water levels when servicing the car. According to the report of the mechanic, it was reported that the oil leak might have caused this entire problem. However, a problem might occur here because Mr. Alan advised you to take the van to his garage to be serviced but you did not. However, this can be out ruled since when buying the vehicle, you explained to Mr. Alan that the vehicle would be used for delivering and collecting furniture’s and this was very crucial in the smooth running of your business. Mr. Alan should be in a position to repair for your vehicle that was all because of the oil spill since according to part v, it is clearly stated that the seller should be able to repair or replace the good in a reasonable time. Defective Clutch and brakes Mr. Alan sold the van knowing that it had these problems. Mr. Alan can be charged of murder because he sold you a car that was not functioning well. If the brakes had not stopped in time, then this would be murder. Mr. Alan knew pretty well that the vehicle had some faults. The mechanic report indicated that the oil spillage might have caused all this trouble. If Mr. Alan had given you the van in a good condition without the oil spillage, then this kind of incident might not have occurred. Conformity with the contract of sale Description of the vehicle According to the contract of sale that was sold, it is evident that Mr. Alan sold you a vehicle that did not meet the requirements of the vehicle that you wanted. You clearly stated that you wanted a van that could cope with loads of ton probably up to 1 ton. In the registration of the vehicle, it was written that the vehicle could only hold a maximum load of half a ton. In addition to that, the vehicle had a cubic capacity of 150 feet while you wanted a vehicle with the cubic capacity of 200 feet. According to the act of directive 99/44/EC, it is clearly stated that goods are considered to be in line with the contract if they are in line with the description that the seller gave and that they possess the qualities of the product in which the seller had stated out to the buyer as a model or sample. This means that Mr. Alan did not conform to the description of the vehicle that he said he was selling. However, he gave out a different good rather than which was described by the consumer. Fit for the intended purpose When buying the vehicle, you explained clearly to Mr. Alan that you wanted a vehicle that would be in the position to carry loads of weight around 1 ton. However, Mr. Alan gave out a vehicle that could only load a maximum load of half a tone. Mr. Alan was also aware that the van which you wanted was to be 200 cubic centimeter. Big enough to accommodate for the transportation of the goods that you were delivering. However, he gave you a van which was not fit for the purpose which was intended. According to the Act of Directive, it states that the goods, which the buyer has bought, should be in shape and fit the particular purpose in which the buyer intended them to be used for (The European Consumer Sales directive 1999). Moreover, the requirements should have been made known to the seller at the time that the contract was made. However, the van Mr. Alan sold you did not meet the requirements. He was quite aware that you needed the van to transport large quantity of goods, which you had described to him, but he still sold you the wrong kind of good. Performance satisfactory The van that Mr. Alan sold you did not meet its performance satisfactory. The van was only a week old when it was reported of defaults such as the oil leakage. Considering that this type of van was a second hand item, this does not give Mr. Alan the right to sell you a car that is in bad condition. It is quite clear that the vehicle that you bought did not meet the performance requirements that were needed. According to the act of directive on the sale of consumer goods, it clearly states that the quality and performance of the good, which was acquired, should be satisfactory. In addition to that, given the nature of the goods and the public statements made about the goods to the buyer should also be taken in to account (Goode & McKendrick 2009). This means that the van that you were sold did not met the requirements of the vehicle which you wanted. Time granted Mr. Alan refused to accept the fact that his company was having any liability in the matter. He also pointed out that the antique firm has been using the vehicle for almost six weeks now and that he had offered to look at the problems five weeks ago. However, Mr. Alan did not put in to consideration what the intended purpose of the vehicle was. When the vehicle was being bought, the intended purpose of the vehicle was spelt out to the seller. Mr. Alan was quite aware that the vehicle was required to deliver and collect furniture for the firm. He also knew that the vehicle was very important for the firm and that the transportation of the enquired goods was very important for the sale. However, he gave out a small period that did not correspond with the schedule of the firm and the commodity. In act of directive, if the goods do not conform to the contract, the consumer should request the seller to repair or replace the goods within a reasonable period and without major inconvenience to the consumer. Mr. Alan deviated from this contract. He did not put in to consideration the period that he was giving out would be too small and that the time frame would inconvenience the consumer, who in this case was Mr. Winston. In addition to that, the period that he gave out was not reasonable at all considering the kind of work the vehicle was intended to do. Road unworthy It is against the laws of the UK to sell a road unworthy vehicle. Mr. Alan knew pretty well that the vehicle he was selling was road unworthy. This is because Mr. Alan knew that the vehicle was leaking oil. The effects of a vehicle that leaks oil is that it will result to the failure of the brakes and problem in the gear changes. This means that Mr. Alan sold for you a road unworthy vehicle and must be charged for it according to the laws of the UK. This type of incidence is an example of an implied term (Richard 2006). Litigation process When you, Mr. Winston has decided that you will sue Mr. Alan so that he can compensate you for the damages of the car and a breach in the contract, then it is important to understand the terms and the consequences that come with it. If you have discussed with the seller and found it impossible to solve your dispute, then you can go ahead and file a suite. Disputes like yours that reach the court are dealt with in the County courts. It is important that to know that a court fee has to be paid against the proceedings that have been issued. However, this can be totaled up to the compensation and interests that is being claimed. In your case, if you happen to win the case that you want to file against Mr. Alan, then he will have to pay for the court fee. You must understand that the costs of going to court are very expensive. In addition to that, there will be a lot of time wastage that will be involved if you will have to go to court since you will be required to be there physically. In addition to that, if you happen to lose the case, then this means you will have to pay for the court fees. In addition to that, you will also be required to pay the required fee. In reaching trial, your case will take up to the least amount of time will be six months. This means that you will not be operating before you are compensated for the charges that you have claimed. In addition to that, the process of hiring a lawyer will be quite costly (Sealy & Hooley 2008). Recommendations Mediation can work as an alternative for you if you do decide that you do not want to go to court. Mediation is a type of an alternative Dispute Resolution. The process will not take long. The parties that are involved in the dispute, which in this case is you and Mr. Alan, will go for the mediation process in an unbiased venue. You can decide whether to be accompanied by a legal representative or not. It is not a requirement. An impartial mediator must be present who will discuss the matter at hand. The mediator will provide a solution, which is agreed upon by everyone. Unlike the litigation process which has proved to be costly, mediation has proved to be a cost effective process. In addition to that, mediation process has proved to be less time consuming for both the parties that are involved. Furthermore, mediation is a process that is convenient for the business since if it is the compensation process it will be quick and efficient. Conclusion In deciding whether you can take the dispute at hand for a legislation process, it is advisable to understand the acts that govern you and what kind of terms is involved in the sales of goods act of 1979. In addition to that, it is also important to analyze the facts at hand or ask a lawyer to explain to you the likely verdict of the case. In signing a contract form, there are terms that are expressed and some that are implied. In this case study, road unworthy vehicles is an instance of the implied terms. References Atiyah, P.S., Adams J. & MacQueen, H. 2010. Atiyah's Sale of Goods. Harlow, UK. Pearson Education, Limited Goode, R., & McKendrick, E. 2009. Goode on Commercial Law. Dayton, Ohio: LexisNexis Richard, P. 2006. Law of Contract, 7th edn. London, Pearsons. Sealy, L., & Hooley, R.J.A. 2008. Commercial Law: Texts, Cases and Materials. New York. Oxford University Press. The European Consumer Sales directive 99/44/EC. 1999 The Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 64(2). London: HMSO. Read More