Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 - Coursework Example

Name Instructor Course Date Legal Aspects Question One Businesses are free to enter into contracts on whatever terms the parties deem fit. However, the contracts involving sales of goods are managed using a range of legislations. In the UK sale of goods contracts between businesses are governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and other international instruments. Every contract has express and implied terms that apply to every transaction. The seller is said to breach the contract if they do not comply with the obligations created by the implied and express terms1. The buyer reserves the right to reject the goods in case of a breach of implied terms. French Rice Trading Ltd breached the implied terms of the contract and thus, they are liable under the English Law. Implied terms found in many contracts are found under the sales of goods Act section 12 to 152. In our case study, The rice was to be packed in 10kg bags and be of ‘fair average quality of the season’s shipments’ as certified when the goods are put on board the vessel. Therefore, the sale is governed by section 14 which are the implied terms about quality and fitness. Parties agree on the method and place of delivery, the goods must be delivered as specified in the contract. After delivery, the buyer accepts the goods and makes all the necessary payments. However, if the buyer had not examined the goods, acceptance is only deemed effective after reasonable time is given to inspect the products3. Section 29 of the SGA 4 gives the parties freedom to dictate specific packaging requirements in the contract. Nevertheless, the seller must package the goods in a way that ensures there is no damage during transit. The implied term of satisfactory quality extends to packaging5. French Rice Trading Ltd is liable for breaching various implied terms of the contract. The contract required the goods to be shipped in April 2016 but actual delivery to Bristrol was on 4th May. Section 29(3)6 the time of delivery specified in the contract of sale binds the sellers to deliver the goods as per the terms. The goods sold to British Food Industries Ltd is sold by description and thus, must be of satisfactory quality and fitness7. However, when the goods arrive at the port of Bristrol 5 tons of rice was mouldy. The company refused to make payments or accept the documents for the whole shipment. In this case, British Food Industries Ltd can claim for damages against the Seller for breach of section 13 and section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act8. The case of Saipol SA v. Inerco Trade9 provides the proper application of the provisions of section 53 and 54 of the SGA in dealing with the suitable measure of damages for breach of terms and warranties. In the case law, the buyer sought to recover damages in regards to the difference between the whole and contaminated products and for the cost of storing and financing the product. The Tribunal held that the buyer is only entitled to damages that represent the difference in value between the warranted products and the actual value as well as the cost for storage and financing of the contaminated product. The provisions of section 53 and 54 are used to determine the buyers claim to damages as explained during appeal to the Court10. The case of Hadley v. Baxendale [1854]11 laid down the main principles of recovering damages from a breach of contract. Under English law, the recoverability can be restricted on the basis of remoteness12. According to the principles, the British Food Industries Ltd can only recover any loss arising naturally according to ordinary course of events from the contract’s breach13. The company can claim damages pursuant to section 53(2)14 and S. 5415 of the SGA. British Food Industries Ltd has not legally accepted the goods and is entitled to reject the goods due to a breach in the contract. However, the company can accept the shipment in part and return the mouldy rice to French Rice Trading Ltd. The seller can remedy and perform as agreed in the terms and conditions without the parties terminating the contract. In brief, liability under the implied terms of quality and fitness for purpose is strict and does not depend on the proof of fault on the seller’s part. Food Industries Ltd has the right to reject the goods delivered by French Rice Trading Ltd, and sue for damages under the Sales of Goods Act and international instruments such as the Vienna Convention. On the other hand, French Rice Trading Ltd has the responsibility to deliver goods as described in the contract and within the specified period. The seller cannot insist that the buyer accepts all the goods delivered. Question Two Intellectual Property Rights protect original creations from being copied and exploited for unfair economic gains. Some of the IP rights must be registered while others are automatic. There are various UK laws concerned with IP rights, including the Constitution and international instruments. Trademarks are defined as signs that differentiate one product or service from another person’s. The sign can be a logo, words, slogans, and so on16. A company that infringes on the rights of a registered trademark by copying or misusing can be held liable for legal action in court. It is very important to learn how to protect ideas and creations so as to save money and time17. Registering a trademark safeguard a brand and gives the creator rights to institute legal action when someone uses the brand without permission. Additionally, the creator can sell the brand or license to a third party when necessary. The Intellectual Property Office in the United Kingdom ensures that the content being trademarked is unique and eligible for registration18. Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a registered trademark by a third party on any product or services identical to that which is specified on the register. UK business uses two abbreviations to show their trademark rights. A registered trademark holder uses the ® symbol in the UK. Potential trademark violations are provided for by the Trade Marks Act 1994 under sections 10(1), 10(2)(a) & (b),and 10(3) 19. Additionally, trademark infringement takes place where a trademarked logo or sign is used for products or services similar to the trademark so as to gain an unfair advantage to the damage of the registered trademark20. In our case, Hairdrying Products R Us’ (‘HPRU’) are using unregistered trademarks for products and a logo similar to those of Keith. HPRU are unfairly benefiting from the existing reputation of Keith’s products and the use of the logo in the course of trade infringes on the registered trademarks of Keith. He can enforce his rights to ensure that HPRU stop using the trademark or exploiting him by serving them with a Cease and Desist letter21. Trademark registration gives the owner statutory protection while some unregistered patents are protected under common law. Legislation offers substantial advantages than common law rights22. There are a number of ways Keith can defend his Trademarks under the English law where there is a justifiable threat23. Registering a trademark gives the owner the right to exclude other people from using it. Thus, to uphold his rights, Keith must monitor for the misuse of his trademarks and enforce his rights against passing off or infringement. In the registration of domain names, the principle is first come first serve, and this puts pressure on any business to register their domain first so as to avoid disputes. Protecting a trademark in the UK starts with registering a mark in the UK Intellectual Property Office24. The aim is to examine the application so as to assess whether it meets the legal requirements for registration. The process gives the owner monopoly on using the trademark in regards to the product or service that is registered25. The original owner of the trademark, Keith can sue HPRU for using a mark that confuses the general population into believing that their products are those of Keith Curl. The European Court of Justice decisions in O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd and L’Oreal v Bellure 26 the court held that a trademark owner cannot prevent a third party from using a sign that is identical or similar to its mark when advertising when the ad satisfies the Comparative Advertising Directive27. As a result, certain conditions are laid down on what does not infringe on trademark and constitutes a compliant advertisement28. Taking a step to register a brand or a service demonstrates a certain type of commitment to the product. Therefore, it is essential to register a trademark to protect the goods and services under both common law and statutory provisions. Simple documentary evidence showing that the item is registered under intellectual property laws is enough proof that the trademark rights exist. As a result, the owner can enforce such rights against infringing third parties. Works Cited Books Baskind, E. Commercial Law: Law Revision & Study Guide.(Oxford University Press, 2015). Bently L and Sherman B, Intellectual Property Law (1st edn, Oxford University Press 2014). Blackett, T. Trademarks. (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000). Colston, C. Principles of Intellectual Property Law. (London: Cavendish, 1999). Jones, L. Introduction to Business Law. (S.l.: Oxford University Press, 2017). Lucas, D and Hill D. Shipping & International Law. (Thomson Reuters, 2011). Nolan, T. "Branding at Austin Rover." (1992). Norman, H. E. Intellectual Property Law. (Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2014). Poole, J, Textbook on Contract Law. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Sivesand, H. The Buyer's Remedies for Non-Conforming Goods: Should There Be Free Choice or Are Restrictions Necessary? (München: Sellier, Europ. Law Publ, 2005) Tanya F, and Jennifer D. Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. ( United Kingdom : Oxford University Press, 2017). Turner C, Unlocking Contract Law, Third Edition (3rd edn, Routledge 2013). Articles Klimkevičiūtė, D. "The Legal Protection of Well-Known Trademarks and Trademarks with a Reputation: the Trends of the Legal Regulation in the EU Member States." Societal Studies 3.7 (2010): 229-256. Tam, P. " Well-known trademark protection. A comparative study between the laws of the European Union and Vietnam” (Lund University 2011). Statutes and Directives Sales of Goods Act, 1979 The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Case laws Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch. J70. L’Oreal v Bellure (Case C-487/07 [2009]).  O2 Holdings Ltd v Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd (Case C-533/06 [2008]) Saipol SA v. Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWHC 2211 Read More