Advice to Peter and Patrick - Essay Example

Advice to Peter and Patrick Introduction The researcher seeks to investigate the possible areas of breach of contracts resulting from the transaction involving Peter and Patrick with their respective sellers and to propose a possible solution mechanism the two may embrace. Under the Sale of Goods Act, all goods must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose and thus a retailer is deemed to have breached the contract and the buyer have a claim for compensation as outlined in section 14 of Sale of Goods Act. Therefore, Peter and Patrick have a right to reject within a reasonable time and make claims under the Sale of Goods Act based on various possible ways to resolve the issues based on the circumstances and on what they want to be done as provided for in the implied terms section 12 of Sales of Goods Act. According to the case, Bowes v Richardson & Son Ltd, the buyer was held by the Courts entitled to reject a new car seven months after delivery based on various car problems some occurring immediately after delivery and others months later. The Court held that the buyer had never had the opportunity to fully assess the repairs made on the car as so could never be held to have accepted the goods. Such case law authority is a precedent for Peter’s iTablet and Patrick’s TV cases. They both have their rights against the retailer and not the manufacturer and hence a claim is valid to make against Trusted Electricals and Aptab R Us. On the hand, Peter can make a claim on goods sold on hire purchase not through Sales of Goods Act but via the Supply of Goods Implied Terms Act 1973 that makes the Hire Purchase Company responsible for the quality of the goods supplied and offers him slightly different rights. Patrick is also protected under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to decide on the best way possible to end his agreement in his cases against Barcpeds. Body Patrick’s Vs Trusted Electricals On the first occasion, Patrick purchased a 42 inch television for his living room from Trusted Electricals. The Television was defective and also had a consequential loss as it overheated and damaged his expensive wallpaper. In order to advice Patrick, there is a need to investigate whether the sign his attention was drawn to was available at the point of purchase and that he was told about it before the acquisition. The researcher believes that Patrick was never told of this sign at the point of purchase and thus his demands are valid as required by section 13 subsection one (sale by description) where there is an implied term that the good correspond to the description. Patrick should be compensated for both the damage he suffered from the wallpaper and his TV should be replaced or refunded as provided for in section 48 (A,B and C) of Sales of Goods Act. It is the seller’s responsibility to ensure the consumer’s post-purchase evaluation meets the value or the price paid for such items. The reason given by the manager for not replacing or refunding Patrick is unfair, and this may promote illegal and unethical trading where the burden in case of defective products are shifted to consumers that is contrary to the provisions of Section 15A of Sales of goods Act. There is a requirement by the law that warranty be issued to customers who purchase such items, and such damages need to attract proper compensation by unscrupulous traders such as the Trusted Electricals. The product liability provides that manufacturers, distributors, suppliers and retailers may be held responsible for any injuries products cause to consumers. Regardless of any contractual restrictions of responsibility, if a product or any of its component parts are defective, its manufacturers may be liable for the damage caused as provided for under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the common law of negligence. Patrick needs to know that an action under the CPA or for negligence can be brought for damage caused to private property (wallpaper) as a result of a product defect. Before Patrick takes any further step, he needs to understand what a defective product encompasses. A product can include goods, electricity and the parts of any product. In the case a part of or raw material incorporated into a finished product is defective both the manufacturer of the component and the manufacturer of the finished product are potentially liable. According to CPA, a product defectiveness includes not only the risk of personal injury but also the likelihood of damage to property, is “not such as persons are entitled to expect”. A product is not rated defective just because a safer one is on the market. Patrick must ensure that the following key benchmarks against a defective product are met before suing the Trusted Electricals that the court apply in the determination of the state of the art at the time of supply. All aspects of the marketing of the product The use of any mark in relation to the product Instructions and warnings What might reasonably be expected to be done with the product at the time the product was supplied? Therefore, under the Sales of Goods Act, Patrick has the right to get the good repaired or replaced if it is too late to reject. The retailer can do either depending on the one deemed cheapest. The retailer must either replace or repair faulty products ‘within a reasonable time but without significant inconvenience.’ In this case, the Trusted Electricals denied that the responsibility and hence Patrick can claim a reduction in the purchase price, or a refund minus an amount of the usage he had for a good (rescission). The law also provides that a claimant (Patrick) can arrange for the repair of his Television by someone else should the seller refuse to either repair or replace the good and then claim compensation from the Trusted Electricals for the cost of such repair. Patrick also has six years to take a claim to court for faulty products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and five years in Scotland. Patrick would be able to prove that the fault was present when he bought the item and not something that was the result of normal wear and tear if the claim ends in Court. Patrick Vs Barcpeds In this case, Patrick has must review the agreement and particularly, the ‘Repossession: your rights box’ that clearly outlines how much Patrick need to have paid (a third of total amount) to stop the Barcpeds taking the product back without a court order or his consent. He is, however, mandated to decide on what to do before his Financial Institution repossess the product (Goldring). Patrick’s free consent and Court order are critical and should be honored even if he had not met a third of the amount outlined in the agreement. He has not shown that he is unable to pay for the rest of the installment despite the defaults. He has to follow three options to take; If he is still willing to keep the product and can afford the full monthly installment and part of arrears, the law provides that the creditor can reduce the amount of installments with as small amount of a short time. He can also go to Court and obtain a ‘time order’ and pay fewer installments once he has received default notice or arrears notice as provided for under Consumer Credit Act 1974. If he is finally dismissed and may no longer afford to make more that installment payments to his lender Patrick need to decide whether he can realistically afford keeping the product and decide the best way of ending the agreement. Peter Vs Aptab iTablet Us In this case, Peter can claim due to negligence or misinformation by sales assistant. Peter was tricked by the Sales Assistant to purchase a product he was never intended and hence contrary to section 13 (1). Peter is mandated under the Sale of Goods Act to buy a product that is of good quality, safe and work. He is also entitled to the right information about the product and its use. Peter, therefore, is legally right to demand the refund of his money or be given the right iTablet he ordered (Sales of Goods Act Section 48 (A, B and C)). In this case, the only defense the Sales Assistant would cling on is misuse of iTablet as it was put to work it was never meant for, however, this was not Peter’s fault as he was tricked by the Sales Assistant to purchase an item he did not intend to buy and he was assured of the satisfactory of the product (or goods are not fit for the buyer’s purpose where Peter had made known to the Sales Assistant). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the seller and not Peter. Peter cannot sue the Manufacturer since, it was a liability of the Sales Assistant as the iTablet was in good condition but was only subjected to wrong following misinformation by the Sales Assistant. Therefore, Peter should seek an expert opinion since the trader has refused his claim. He should, however, take care as a formal opinion is at times so expensive (Goldring 1998). Peter should try to get an informal opinion first from other traders. Peter should also be keen if he decides to get an independent report through talking to the dealer and attempting to reach a consensus on who will make the payment. Unless the Court ordered for such expert report, Peter should be keen as there is no guarantee of refund even if he reaches a consensus with the Sales Assistant in advance. He should thus agree prior to the expert report if the agreement encompasses him paying for part of the cost of the report as both will be bound by the expert’s findings. Peter Vs Sofa Direct In this case, Sofa Direct has breached the contract as the delivery was not executed hence breaching Section 27 of Sales of Goods Act that requires the seller to deliver the products Section 28 and 29 (3). Under Sales of Goods Act, Section 51, Peter can maintain an action against the seller for damages for non-delivery. Therefore under Section 75 of Consumer Credit Act 1974, Peter has exactly same rights from the credit card provider as from the retailer (Sofa Direct). The best mechanism Peter should employ to contact his credit card company since the trader has gone out of the business. Peter should claim for a Sofa bought with installment credit through the finance company that is he repay to and not the DFS or SCS besides being free to complain about them. Peter is covered by Section 75 (equal liability) as outlined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The credit card provider is jointly liable with the Sofa Direct for the item costing more than 100 pounds and not more than 30,000 pounds including VAT. The law provides that Peter do not need to have paid the total cost by credit card. Peter is covered as he had already paid a deposit of 800 with a credit card. Section 75 will help Peter get the refund of his money from the credit card provider despite the trader having gone kaput. Peter only need to meet the following; The claimant amount should be between 100 and 30,000 pounds The goods were not bought abroad He should not have used PayPal The product was not bought by a second cardholder Conclusion In order for Peter and Patrick to be compensated (refund), they ought to have rejected the faulty item within a reasonable time after the purchase that is usually three to four weeks. According to Case Law Authority, in Hurst V Grange Motors, the buyer rejected a second-hand Rolls Royce after three months and the Court held that to be a valid rejection as the three months between purchase and learning of the seriousness of the defect the buyer had no enough opportunity to ascertain the car’s conformity to the contract and hence had not accepted. Such a ruling fits both Peter (iTablet) and Patrick (TV) cases. According to Patrick’s TV, he was within the timeframe, and he was right to reject the product and return it for a refund as he did. Peter is also right to claim for the reimbursement of his iTablet based on the sales assistant negligence and misleading information as he categorically stated he wanted a device that could store at least 10,000 tracks. Reference Goldring, John. Consumer Protection Law. Leichhardt, N.S.W: Federation Press, 1998. Print. Read More