Sale of Goods and Agency Section 14 - Assignment Example

The shopper made their purpose for which they intended to use it but the trader did supply that specific commodity that could be used in that specific manner. The court issued a verdict that the goods were not worth for the use and that the client had declared the intention for the goods. “Caveat emptor” is a forewarning to customers to exercise caution when making purchase of a product in order to avoid deceit by the fraudulent traders who may cone them of their money or products or even supply substandard goods at an exorbitant price.

During the transfer of property in merchandise, clients are advised to take caution to verify the value of those merchandise and ensure that there will serve the intended purpose4. This is imperative in order to reduce the legal cases relating to the sale of inferior supplies. In Bartlett v Sidney Marcus [1965] 2 All ER 753, lord Denning declared that merchantability refers to use of good for some specific purposes and that this did not require the good to be useful in all aspects per se5. It was for the same reasoning that in Thain v Anniesland trade centres [1997] SCLR 991 the car with fault gearbox was still considered to be of superior value6.

According to section 14(2) it is presumed that traders in their ordinary duties are obliged to supply their clients with goods that meet their required value7. However, the law does not offer specific characteristics of assessing the quality of goods. Thain v Anniesland trade centre [1997] SCLR 991, the buyer purchased a second hand car whose gearbox was faulty. However, the court gave a verdict that the car was of right superior value.8 However, in Britvic Soft Drinks v Messer UK Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 548, the supplier was held responsible for distributing tainted carbon dioxide gags which was to be used for manufacturing soft drinks9.

According to the revised act, of 1992, section 14(2) defines product as fit for the reason it was intended for if it is able to serve all reasons10. It should also physically satisfy the buyers need. In ss.14 & 15 SGA 1979, the buyer should have been given sufficient time to check for any fault, security and stability. However, this may not apply if the clients were aware of the issue which is making the good unworthy for the use it was intended, where the buyer was given an opportunity to examine the good before making purchase or if the sale was by sample there was an opportunity for the buyer to inspect the sample11.

According to ss.14 & 15 SGA 1979, the seller is not accountable in regard to the security of the goods in case they have a flaw which could not be recognized at the time of the sale or if the declaration of this flaw could not the arrangement of the agreement12. In Grant v The Australian Knitting Mills ([1936] A.C. 562), the plaintiff had contracted dermatitis after putting on woollen garments manufactured by the defendant because of presence of sulphite and that the client used them for a week unwashed.

The court verdict was that defendant was answerable for the distress experienced by the plaintiff13. From this case, the law holds that goods are fit for the right purpose and are considered acceptable if the buyer would still purchase them without making request for