Law Project - Mohammed, E & Z Company, and L&G Company - Case Study Example

LAW PROJECT Students Name Course Professors Name Institution City Date Facts of the Case The case involves Mohammed, E & Z Company, and L&G Company is based on warranty of merchantability, express, and implied warranties in sales of goods contract. E&Z agrees to sell electronics to Mohammed, who also agrees to enter into an agreement with the company and buys refrigerator. Being a major distributor of L&G electronic in Dubai, E&Z is a renowned supply and every buyer would always want to buy electronics from them going by the results in the past sales. The products being sold E&Z being those manufactured by L&G is believed to be of good quality due to the position that the firms are enjoying in the market. It is in order for any person to enter into sale of goods contract with the company and expect high quality product(Ferdinand 2012). When either of the party breaches the contract, such a person will be responsible for any mistake done as per the law (Goode 2012). When E&Z sells washing machine with a defective electronic switch to Mohammed, it is becomes a violation of sales of good's terms, which is chargeable by the law. Mohammed is, therefore, legally in a position to see for compensation for the damages cost and a refund on the amount incurred during the sale of the washing machine (Adams 2010). Multiple provisions on the sale of goods contract empowers Mohammed to seek for damages of up to 25 Million Dirham. In support of the compensation, being sort by Mohammed the following provisions can be used. Warranty of Merchantability When a company that deals with particular product sales a good, the good sold is expected to be of average quality according to warranty of merchantability state. If the good fails to match the average quality of the goods that the seller has been supplying, the seller is to be held liable any breach of warranty of merchantability (Sealy & Hooley 2013). Liability on the ground of a breach is expected to be laid on sellers who are known to be supplying particular goods in a regular basis. Going by the case presented by El. Hajji Mohammed involves a company, E&Z Company, which is one of the major resellers of L&G Company. It implies that the E&Z is a constant supplier of electronic products and s such is expected to sell products that are of good state and quality or be liable for any damage caused (Adams 2010). By selling washing machine to Mohammed, it was expected, and it was in order for Mohammed to believe that the sale was in good faith and as the other electronics sold, it was to be of good quality. It is, therefore, in order that E&Z and L&G are held responsible for the damages that were caused to Mohammed due to a defective switch. Express and Implied Warranties When a buyer goes to the seller and tells the sellers what to buy, and the seller behaves in a manner that suggests that the buyers need is understood, and good is offered according to the seller’s judgment, and then there is a warranty that the good is of the right quality (Sealy & Hooley 2013).. Under sales of goods contract, goods being sold by the Company is supposed to be fit to perform the advertised purpose and that, it will be able to match the desire of the buyer. Every item being sold by the company should be in line with customers’ preferences not unless it is a second hand product (Bernard 2012). Express warranty is a warranty that the selling company is giving, which can be by way of action, word of mouth, or in behavior. On the other hand, the law that, all the products being offered by the seller must be fit for the purpose for what the products were intended for is the implied warranty (Adams 2010). When a buyer goes to buy a product that, the seller knows very well its purpose then it is expected of the seller to provide the right product for the intended purpose, fit for purpose condition. The case between Mohammed and the two companies, E&Z and L&G can best relate to both expressed and implied warranty. Washing machine as was requested by Hajji was intended for a specific purpose, and the seller who happens to be a regular supplier of the same product, the product that was to be given to Mohammed was to be fully fit for the purpose as served by washing machine without any defect. E&Z Company went ahead and sold a good that had a defect and could not perform the purpose for which it was meant to perform. Mohammed had to suffer property damages and body injuries because of the malfunction that resulted from the defective switch of the washing machine. This was in contrary with the provisions by expressed and implied warranty and as such should be considered a breach of express and implied warranty and both manufacturers and the seller need to be held liable for the damages. For that reason, it is of prayer that the court rule in favor of Hajji and legal actions taken upon the two companies. Negligence of the Manufacturer and Seller In the event that the product that has been sold by a retailer to a consumer result to property damages and body injuries, the cause of action may be taken upon the manufacturer, the person who designed the product. Manufacturer will be held liable should their negligence in the assembling the product or packaging of the product result to harm to the final consumer. The law that ensures that injured person is compensated from the injuries and damages caused by defective product is known as product liability (Goode 2012). The law demands that the product that is put in the line of sales must meet the ordinary prospects of the final consumers. Products that have defects in one way or the other cannot be classified under a product that has met ordinary expectations and, as such, manufacturer should be held responsible for any damage or injury that is caused by a defective part or the whole product. In the case at hand, Hajji sustains body injuries and has his property damaged because of the defective switch of the washing machine bought from company selling electronics for L&G Company (Ferdinand 2012). Manufacturing company out of negligence put washing machine with a defective switch in the goods to be sold without doing thorough examination of the state of the product. Retailed company, E&Z, did not inspect the product to verify its state before it was on the sale to the final consumers and allows defective get into the hand of the consumer, Mr. Hajji who suffers body injuries and his property damaged. Hajji is entitled to compensation of the injuries sustained and damages to his property that resulted from the malfunction of the washing machine. Legal action need to be taken upon the manufacturing company for negligently allowing defect product into the market (Adams 2010). Product liability provides that defect can occur at any part of the chain and whoever responsible should hold accountable. Should a defect be detected at the retailer’s part within the chain, then it would be a seller to be accounted responsible for the damages and injuries sustained by Hajji. Asking for the Remedies from the Court The submission has looked at conditions and various warranties such as warranty of merchantability, expressed, and implied responsibility along with the negligence of the manufacturing company (Ferdinand 2012). It will be in order if the court honor the prayers of the plaintiff to be compensated of a sum equals to the body injuries sustained and the property damaged from the defective machine bought from E&Z Company, which is a retail company selling electronics manufactured by L&G Company. According to strict liability, plaintiff is not to proof that manufacturing company was negligent, but only need to proof that the good was defective. For that, matter the no-fault concept or simply strict liability grants Mohammed an opportunity to recover his lost property and compensation for sustained injuries (Goode 2012). Following the legal provisions in various perspectives with a bid to address Hajji’s case and the two companies, it is clear, that Mr. Mohammed's case is strong and that the ruling of the court should be in plaintiff's prayer. It is the wish of Mohammed that, court grants his wish based on the legal evidences that have been laid before the court. Submissions Defending E&Z Company and L&G Company Following the case that has been brought on the two companies, E&Z and L&G, by Mohammed over the sale of washing machine, the two companies have the following submission to disproof claims for compensation on the ground of being sold to defective goods. It is very true that Mohammed bought the product from E&Z Company which is a major retail company to L&G Company, a manufacturer of electronic such as the washing machine. However, the company would wish to discredit the claims made by the customer, Mohammed, to whom a washing machine was sold. The two companies defend themselves from the case by use of the very conditions that have been cited by the customer to prove to the court that they are not liable to payment of anything following the claims made by the customer. Looking at the provisions on the warranty of Merchantability, it demands that the product being supplied by the company on a regular basis should be consistent and have an average quality. Any defect found on such goods would require that the supplier and or manufacturer be accounted liable for any loss or injury (Bernard 2012). Manufacturing company, which is L&G, would wish to confirm to the court that the products that were released to various outlets were thoroughly inspected and found to be meeting their recommended standards as per the normal daily procedure of the company (Adams 2010). The retail company, E&Z, would also wish to acknowledge that goods passed through their normal procedure of inspecting the goods if they comply with the basic standards. For that reason, the two companies would want categorically to say that the washing machine among any other product that was sold to the customers before on and after the day Mohammed bought the washing machine were all in their rightful position to perform their recommended tasks. The L&G Company is a highly reputable company in the industry without previous cases of such defects as plaintiff claims. On the other hand, E&Z Company is a reputable and the largest retail company known for supplying defect free electronics. It is not in order for the plaintiff to lie to the court that the two reputable companies sold him a defective product that led to body injuries and property damages (Sealy & Hooley 2013). That is in bad faith and should be treated as tainting the image of the two companies, which can result to huge losses. Based on expressed and implied warranty, the two companies agree that they made their judgment of what the client wanted and gave out a machine that was meant to carry out the job that the client implied. The client wanted a washing machine and out of the experience and the knowledge that the retail shop has had, a rightful judgment was made and a machine that matched the job description was sold to Mohammed (Bernard 2012). To the retail best of knowledge, the machine that was sold to Hajji was in a position to competently carryout the activity for which it was meant to do. It is not in order for the plaintiff to claim negligence on the two companies as the cause of the injuries and property damage that he has suffered (Goode 2012). If he insists, there is an exception on the conditions provided by expressed and implied warranty. The exception, as explained in Baldry v Marshall, the seller from any liability should the buyer make a wrong purchase because of his failure to use his own skills and judgment before the purchase. Mr. Mohammed should be held responsible for all the injuries and damages sustained to the machine’s malfunctions because he failed to make rightful judgment when purchasing a machine and took a defective machine. It can be seen clearly that none of the two companies need to be held liable for the injuries sustained by Mohammed and for the loss of his properties as there is no proof that the machine that was sold to him was actually defective even though the sustained injuries can be seen (Sealy & Hooley 2013). Mr. Mohammed is not in a position to justify that he put the use of washing machine in a way that is required and that can out of careless handling of the machine hence the sustained injuries (Adams 2010). Without such viable proof, the court should not grant Mohammed his prayers and instead charge him for blackmailing the company, which is likely to cause huge financial loss and the goodwill that the two companies have worked so hard to earn. Ruling on the Case of Mohammed Vs E&Z and L&G Companies After going through submissions by the two parties, the judge has the best opportunity to come up with informed judgment as guided by the law and various legal positions. The judgment by the judge focuses on various issues such as negligence of the plaintiff, if at all there was injury and damages to the property, and possible changes that would have been done by the manufacturer (Goode 2012). After looking for presentations by the two parties, the judge pronounces remedy. Under sales and goods contract, there are provisions that are made to ensure that both sellers and buyers are not disadvantaged when they sell or buy in good faith. Since buyers may not have much information pertaining to the product that they would want to have, provisions such as warranty of merchantability, expressed, and implied warranty. Warranty of merchantability is a provision that was drafted to help buyers from unethical sellers who may be interested in selling defective products to buyers with the intention of maximizing profit (Sealy & Hooley 2013). It demands of sellers who are regular sellers of certain products to remain consistent with the quality of goods that they sell and should there be any change, they are expected to inform sellers before the contract of sale is entered into. Expressed and implied warranty also gives buyers the opportunity to believe in the judgment of sellers while selling item to buyers (Goode 2012). In such a case, must sellers know the intended use of the product to be bought and provide a product that is fit for the said intention. Even though the law gives the buyers a chance to believe in the judgment of sellers, they are also required to make a proper judgment when going for any product to ensure that the good they are sold to is exactly what they wanted to avoid any problem once the good is sold. In this case, it would be important that the negligence contributed by plaintiff be pointed out. It is clear that the plaintiff relied entirely on the judgment of the seller and did not in any way attempt to justify if the seller’s judgment was true by inspecting the machine before taking the product with him (Adams 2010). Should he have inspected the washing machine, he would have realized that the product had a defective switch and the injury would have been avoided. From the plaintiff submission and his state, it can be deduced without reasonable doubt that he suffered body injuries. The state of the washing machine and the property that was around the machine as at the time the machine malfunctioned shows that multiple numbers of properties belonging to the plaintiff was damaged (Sealy & Hooley 2013). The damages can be proved have been caused to a malfunctioned part or the whole of the machine, which can only mean that the property that was sold to plaintiff by E&Z Company was defective. Machines state and the nature of malfunction show that the switch was not properly designed. Proper connection of the electric wires that run to the switch was interchanged. Out of negligence, manufacturer rearranged the wires inappropriately, which was the result for the body injury and property damages. The defect required either a change in switch or rearranging the wire in the right way they should have been, which was not done, by E&Z Company or L&G Company. Even though wholesaler, E&Z Company, is not the manufacturer, of washing machine, it is liable as it did not ascertain the condition of the product when picking washing machine from the manufacturer. He decides to sell a product whose quality is not inspected and as such, any injury caused, to whoever buys the product, wholesaler is to be held responsible as the buyer relied upon the seller’s judgment. Remedy of the Case • The washing machine was not reasonably fit for the purpose it was intended. • Washing machine was not of merchantable quality, and plaintiff was not able to identify the defect by reasonable way of examination. From the above statements, the court grants plaintiff his prayers that he is compensated for the damages that were caused by the washing machine a sum of money worth 25 Million Dirham from both the retail company and the manufacturing company. Reference List Adams, J., 2010. Atiyah's Sale of Goods. Business Law 42 (6), p.564. Goode, R., 2012. Goode on Commercial Law. Sheffield: CRUS, pp.44-68. Sealy, L. and Hooley, R. (2013). Commercial Law: Texts, Cases, and Materials. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Ferdinand, F. R., 2012. Product Liability: Defense on defective product New York: Pantheon. Bernard, S. F., 2012. Defense on manufacturers and buyers. New York: Pantheon. Read More