Problem Questions of Commercial and Consumer Law - Assignment Example

Commercial and Consumer Law Commercial and Consumer Law Q From the given case, three critical issues arise. First, a dispute has arisen between Hugh, Gardener, and Son. The dispute revolves around the amount of money Hugh should pay for the tarmacking of his driveway. Tarmacking is an extra work that Gardener and Son undertook, the extra work had no terms agreement laid. By the supply of goods and services provision of 1982, an individual has an obligation to offer services with reasonable care and skills. The individual should carry out the service within a reasonable time that favors all the parties involved. The act under s. 15 (2) SGSA addresses instances where there are no price agreements; the client has an obligation to give a reasonable pay for the services. S.15 (2) SGSA imposes an obligation on Hugh to pay a reasonable price for the cost of the services offered by Gardener and son. Hugh should properly evaluate and determine the reasonable cost involved in tarmacking his driveway. The estimation involves quantity surveying based on the materials used and the intensity of services incurred. The Act prevents protects and prevents Hugh from paying an extra amount based on Gardener and son demands, but based on a fair evaluation that he comfortable agrees. The second issue evident is that Hugh is unhappy with the quality of service Gardener, and son has offered him. He in effect appears unlikely to pay the full price for landscaping. The issue involves a contract of services under the Supply of Goods and Services Acts (SGSA). The Act asserts that individuals or personnel must offer their services with reasonable care and skill (s. 13). Reasonable care and skills ensure that services delivered are of high and desired quality and standards that satisfy the recipient. Gardener and Son have an obligation from this Act to use reasonable skill and care in carrying out the service of landscaping the garden to produce a result that satisfies Hugh. The delivery and execution of services should take place within a reasonable time (s. 14). The Acts eliminates fraud in businesses and any relating transactions undertaken. Hugh is unhappy with the quality of the service delivered by Gardener and Son, an indication that they failed to meet his satisfaction requirement. According to s 14 (2) on satisfactory quality, the quality of goods sold or services offered must be satisfactory to the client. The Act provides for objective tests as mechanisms to ascertain the satisfactory quality. The objective test entails service quality that a reasonable person would approve and regard as satisfactory factoring in the cost, nature and relating aspects. The supplier of the service must meet the standards that concur with a reasonably competent individual in the same line of business. Gardener and Son fail to satisfy Hugh by their services and therefore their actions are a breach of s. 13 SGSA 1982 and s. 14 SGSA 1982. Since SGSA does not set out remedies or penalties for the breach of the acts, common law remedies come into consideration in Hugh’s case. In reference to the renowned Hong Kong Fir Shipping v Kawasaki of 1962, a term requiring care and skill regard as an innominate term. Therefore, Hugh’s remedy bases upon the extent, nature of the breach and whether the breach deprived him substantially of the whole benefits of the contract. If deprived, Hugh has the powers to terminate the contract and use breach by Gardener and son to claim for the price. If the nature of the breach is tolerable, then Hugh would treat the breach as a breach of warranty and claim compensation for the damages. The third issue emerging in the case is the fact that the grass on the lawn is of very poor quality. The issue lies under contract for work and materials to which the SGSA would apply. The terms of work and materials used by a service provider should meet the optimum quality standards for use. Satisfactory quality act provides for prior test of the quality of materials used in executing a service. The prior test ensures that the materials used are of good and required quality to produce a satisfactory result. The benchmarks for the tests base on standardized materials that ensures the conditions of the materials are satisfactory. Second-hand goods also have independent parameters for ascertaining their quality. Garden and son were to evaluate and ensure that Hugh’s grass seed are in a satisfactory quality and standard capable of translating to the required results. Therefore, if the grass seed used in the case were not of satisfactory quality, Gardener, and son would be strictly liable under ss. 4(2). Fitness for purpose s14 (3) ensures that the goods or materials offered suit its intended purpose. The Act asserts that if the buyer impliedly makes his purpose for goods, the seller has a compulsion to guarantee that the goods are fit for the purpose. An example of the provision locates in Goley’s v Perry case of 1960. Section 15 of the Act binds the seller to assume responsibility of goods bought in bulk if the buyer only tested a small portion to ascertain the quality. From the Act under ss. 4(5) Garden and son, remain liable if the grass seed used were not fit to suit the intended purpose. The SGSA describes goods of satisfactory quality as those that a reasonable individual would view as satisfactory taking into account all the relevant aspects. Hugh has the powers of claiming there has been a breach of s. 4(2) and s. 4(5). The claim references to higher chances of a reasonable person not regarding the quality of the lawn as not being satisfactory. Q2 Case Emma, a physiotherapist, feels coned by a furniture seller. The table she admired and paid for is not exactly the same table she received on delivery day. She claims that the length of the table is not as she expected. Most outstanding is clashing color that she chose. Emma claims that she saw a pink table in the window of Jones Furniture Ltd and that was her choice. However, upon delivery, she received a green table with a shorter length than she had expected. To make matters worse, the chair she ordered alongside the chair was too short to fit usage alongside the table. In addition, Emma also claims that the tables had its screw missing. Advice on Color Difference Emma ordered for a table that is pink in color because that was the choice she felt would match with her room settings. Section 13 of the law addresses sales of goods based on the description. Section 13(1) state clearly that whenever a contract exists among parties to sell goods by description, the term implication is that there will be correspondence of goods and description as initially agreed. Section 13(1) (i) further outlines that description is an essential aspect that a buyer relies on; and section 13(1) (ii) Contract cannot fail to put description into consideration since it is an essential component of goods sales contract. However, Jones Furniture shop Ltd went contrary to the description act by delivering green table to Emma instead of a pink one. If Emma reached an agreement with Jones Ltd but received a color contrary to the agreement, then that was a breach of section 13 as well as the express term. If Emma bought the table as a customer, then section 15A will fail to apply to her case. I would advice Emma according to section 12(5A) that states if a seller breaches the condition of the contract, the buyer has the ability to repudiate the contract and make the damage claims. Emma relied on Johns ltd description as a pink and therefore is entitled to launch a breach complain of section 13 giving her the right to reject the table that did not meet the description. Missing Safety Screw Emma realized that one of the screws was missing from her newly delivered table that compromised quality of the product. According to section 14(2A), a reasonable person considers meeting satisfactory qualities as satisfactory standards. The seller did not inform the client about the defects on the good. The failure in the part of the seller to inform Emma, their customer about the faulty product was a breach of section 14(2C) (i). However, Emma also failed on her part by not making efforts to do thorough and immediate examination of stock at both the shop stock and when delivery was done at her house. Section 14 (2C) (ii) demands that the buyer does examination of goods he or she intends to buy. However, Emma mainly relied on the photos and images she saw at the window. Emma mainly focused on its price that she felt was cheaper than equivalent tables. She failed to notice the chair had some faults and shorter than the normal standard quality. Logically, she paid a price considered very low and it would be ridiculous if she expected high quality products. The missing screw therefore renders the table unsatisfactory to the buyer. Emma should therefore not launch any complaints in the case of the missing screw because Section 14(2E) (a) gives a seller some space for escaping. It states that a seller can insist that he was not cognizant of the damage or not easily been aware. However, Jones Ltd was aware of the purpose that Emma intended to use the table. They therefore ought to know that the goods are fit as per the intended purpose. Emma can therefore bring the seller to book under section 14(3), which states that under the contract, goods supplied must be fit and ready for the intended purpose. Under this section, Emma can claim either refund or for better and highly quality goods as outlined in the contract. It is understandable that Emma made the purpose of the table known to the seller. Short Length of Table Emma further noticed that table delivered was not long enough to act as both a bed and a massage table. The table could not fully accommodate any customer who has five feet and above, making it not fully convenient for the purpose intended for it. Section 15 highlights about the need for making sales by samples where the buyer finds a chance to examine the existing samples. Emma made it known to the seller that the purpose of the table was to use it for massage purposes and occasionally as a bed. The seller therefore violated section 14(3) of the law that explicitly covers fitness for purpose. Emma should capitalize on the fact that the seller violated her right of providing efficient table for the intention despite being aware of the purpose. Section 14(3) was breached because Emma did not need to rely on seller’s judgment and skills to get the product outcome she required. However, Emma should take the advice not to rush with the issue of breaching section 14(3) because she acted as a physiotherapist not a customer. The same section 14(3) compels a buyer who does identify himself or herself as a customer like in Emma’s case to treat the breach. Emma also failed to make it explicit that the chair was for use together with the table and therefore, remains liable for any mismatch that occurred. Bibliography The National Archives. Sales of Goods Act 1979. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54 The National Archives. Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29 Read More