The supply of goods act - Essay Example

1 Introduction The Sale and Supply of Goods Act and The Supply of Goods and Services Act both play prominent role is the initial part of this presentation. The Supply of Goods Act was used to shape the premise and establish the fact that a transaction had in fact transpired and on the basis of the set of circumstances which accompanied this transaction, the new for the incorporation of the Supply of Goods and services Act of 1982 became necessary in pointing out a possible resolution... The Supplier of a service acting in the course of business in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to carry out a service with reasonable care and skill and, unless agreed to the contrary, within a reasonable time and make no more than a reasonable charge. Albeit in the case of our presentation example, the item was newly purchased, so it is safe to assume that it was still under warranty, therefore no charges were incurred, on behalf of the purchaser. All other terms previously mentioned apply, unless they have been excluded and there are no strict limits on the circumstances in which an exclusion or variation will be effective. If the supplier can not carry out the work with reasonable care and skill the law treats this matter as a breach of contract and the consumer can seek redress. It is on the points of reasonable care and skill, which the consumer bases the principle cause in this instance for seeking redress. Often reasonable compensation in these circumstances will be repair or replacement. Like the Sale of Goods Act, the Supply of Goods and Services Act also imposes strict liability in any materials used. If an electrician puts in a faulty light switch, its irrelevant whether he knew the switch was not right. When it comes to the work carried out the act doesn't, in fact, give anymore rights 2 than one has in common law, but it does lay them out clearly. It emphatically states that a tradesman or professional has a 'duty of care' towards all property. As we will find in the presentation, the common phrase 'duty of care', hinges on the crux of the issue of which we are confronted. This principle has far reaching scope and breadth, because it requires one to address matters which might happen or should be foreseen to happen if the proper or industry standard procedures are not adhered too by the professional technician. The 'duty of care' also evolves around the skill and care which a responsible person must consider while performing a task which is considered to be important, and to which their dependability and skill has been entrusted. In the absence of this duty of care, there is a definite case of negligence. This presentation also focuses its attention on Employment Law, as it relates to what appears to be a summary dismissal. It points out that even though an employer might feel there is justifiable cause to dismiss an employee, one must never forget that there is a statutory process on how this must be carried out. Whenever the proscribed steps are ignored, the employer leaves his company vulnerable to an assessment, and possibly, even sanctions. Additionally, not only is the process a legal necessity, the language used by the employer in addressing the issue to the employee is also critical to the validity and fairness of the process. In this particular instance with Jim and Asif, the harassment act, surfaces to compound the problem for the company. 3 Law For Business I would advise Cobend that they could be found liable as per the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1984. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 Section 14 (2A and (2b) states: For the purpose of this act, goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, by taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. (2b) for the purpose of this act, the quality of goods include their state and condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of Goods (SOGA 1979). (a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied. (b) appearance and finish freedom from minor defects (d) safety, and (e) durability (Ibid). I would advise Cobend at this juncture that at least three (a), ( c) and (e) of the SOGA conditions do not conform to the statutes as it relates to the product which it sold to Everand. In view of same, in S14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as in Priest v. Last (1903), the court held, "the vendor must be made aware of any unusual use for which the item is intended. Otherwise, in normal use for ordinary purpose, the user need not stipulate the standard usage"(Priest). Further, in Arcos LTD. V. Ronaasen &Son (1933), A C 470, the court held, "the rule is strict in relation to performance of a contract - all obligations must be performed as agreed,if the goods do not comply 4 with the description then the contract is breached."(Arcos). Additionally, in Frost v. AylesburyDiaries (1905) KB 608, the court held, "It was irrelevant that all reasonable precautions had been taken, liability for defective products is strict"(Frost). In S 14 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979 and in Wilson v. Pickett, Cockerall & Co, LTD. (1954), in referring to this section, the court held, "the goods supplied must be considered in the units and measures in which they were supplied when examining quality"(Wilson). In this instance "unit" and "measure" translates into durability and compatibility. Further, the ruling in Wilson v. Rickett goes on to point out in S 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the assumption that a purchaser has relied upon the vendors skill and expertise. It goes on to point out that under the 1979 act, the assumption that a purchaser, when purchasing goods under a trade name, does not rely on the vendors expertise, no longer exists"(Wilson). Also, on this issue we view Baldry v. Marshall (1925), the court held, "when a purchaser relies on the skill and judgment of seller and that seller is acting within the course of his business, then for the purposes of S 14 (3), goods must be suitable for the purpose made known to the purchaser if the breach is to be avoided. Even if the goods are of merchantable (satisfactory) quality, other implied terms must also be satisfied"(Baldry) The cases and statutes mentioned above elucidate the fact that Everand has justifiable cause to file a claim on the basis of receiving a faulty and defective product from Cobend. However, the case possesses yet another aspect which relates to its applicability regarding the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. 5 When we view S 13, Implied Term About Care and Skill, it states; in a contract to supply a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out the service with care and skill. The Cobald service engineer (Jim) responded to the service call within a reasonable time period, however, his negligence in not adequately adhering to detail later resulted in the total destruction of the computer and damages to a Persian rug The Supply of Goods and Services Act of 1982 requires that the supplier is to carry out the work with reasonable care and skill. If the work is not carried accordingly as stipulated by law, the this is a clear case of a breach of contract... In this instance I would advise Cobend to replace the computer which was sold to Everand and subsequently was destroyed due to the negligence of Jim. Additionally, I would advise them to make the necessary arrangements to negotiate with Everand on either the payment or purchase of a Persian rug replacement. I would further advise Cobend that if Everand seeks to file a claim, it would be supported in law by Deneghue v. Stevenson (1832), "negligence was accepted as a separate tort in its own right. Negligence would be satisfied by satisfying a three part test: 1) the existence of a duty of care owed to the plaintiff by the defendant. 2.) a breach of that duty by falling below the appropriate standard of care. 3.) damaged caused by the defendant breach of duty"(Deneghue). The formulation of the neighbor principle by Lord Atkin is used in most negligent cases. One must take special care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably for see would be likely to insure your neighbor. Who then in law is my neighbor - - - - persons who are so closely and directly affected affected by my actions 6 that I ought reasonably to have them in my contemplation as being affected so when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions in question. Also in Greaves and Company (contractors) v. Baynham Merkle and Partners (1974), where a defendant has a particular skill or ability, he is under a duty to exercise that skill. And in Griffith v. Liverpool Corporation (1966) the court held, "there is no defence in failing to discharge a statutory unless all that is possible has been done to comply with that duty"(Griffith) and finally, in Williamson v. Downtown, *1897) the court held, "to be recoverable, loss must arise from the breach.. On the matter of Jim, I would advise Cobend that Jim is entitled to file a claim with the Employment Tribumal and that he has a good case against them for summary dismissal.Additionally because of the manner and content of his exchange with Asif he can also file a claim under the Harassment Act 1997. Jim will based his claim for summary dismissal on the fact that the company did not follow the prescribed contractual disciplinary procedure, which stipulates the six acceptable reasons for a fait dismissal. The first is on the basis of conduct, then capability, reduncacy, statutory ban, having reached retirement age and or "some other substantial reason". Additionally, there is a three step procedure which the employer "must" adher, otherwise the dismissal will be classified as summary and deemed unfair.Clearly, in view of the facts of the case, none of these steps were taken by Cobend. Additionally I will be compelled to also alert Cobend, that given the manner and tenor of Asif's dialogue with Jim, that the company may also be liable, and that Jim can seek 7 relief under the Harassment Act of 1997, as he was approached in a common area and slandered to be incompetent, and defamed as being a communist.I would appraise the company that Jim could seek relief via the Employment Rights Act (1966) and would stand in good stride to receive an award against the company of up to 56,800 pounds. Further as it relates to compensation, if the Employment Tribunal finds in Jims favor, then the company will have two judgments against it which would require financial negative outlays. I would advise them to negotiate terms with Jim, in an attempt to circumvent the prospective filings. Bibliography Arcos LTD. V. Ronaasen & Son 1933 AC 470 Baldry v. Marshall 1925 Deneghue v. Stevenson 1832 Employment Rights Act 1966 Frost v. Aylesbury Diaries 1905 KB 608 Greaves and Company (contractors v. Baynham Merkle and Partners 1974 Griffin v. Liverpool Corpiration 1966 Harassment Act of 1997 Priest v. Last 1903 Sale of Goods and Services Act 1982 The Sale of Goods Act 1979 Williamson v. Downtown 1897 Wilson v. Rickett, Cockerall & Co. LTD. 1954 Read More