Law of Contract and Tort: The Case of Melinda and the dishwasher - Essay Example

A reasonable person would conclude that the new plumber was correct in stating that Albert's piping had been installed "very poorly" (due to the objective fact that it was leaking within seven days) - thus Melinda has a claim against Albert for the 200 pounds that she had to pay the new plumber. The main claim against Superelectrics Limited will be for a breach of contract under the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. This implies into the sale of contract (in this case the acceptance of money from Melinda by the shop in return for the dishwasher) that "the goods will be of satisfactory quality" and that "where expressly or impliedly known by the supplier, the foods will be reasonably fit for the buyer's purposes" (Sale, 1979).

Neither of these implications was met within the sale of the dishwasher, which had a defective thermostat and ended up both injuring Melinda and damaging her property. Melinda will have a cause for action to have her money refunded (599 pounds) for breach of contract, and perhaps, although this is less certain in the case of the shop, for negligence in selling her a product that was dangerous. The general tests for negligence are as follows: 1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; 2)the defendant breached that duty of care; 3) this breach caused the loss or damage to the plaintiff and 4) the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for that loss.

In the case of the shop it is clear that 1 and 2 are met, but Melinda is on less certain ground on claiming that the breach was what caused both the injury to herself and the damage to her property. She should be advised to seek the return of her money under breach of contract, but to pursue the manufacturer of the dishwasher on the other grounds, as she will have more chance of winning. c) Claims against Domestico PlcAs outlined in the description of the provisions that need to be met for a tort of negligence it seems clear that 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all met with respect to the manufacturer of the dishwasher, Domestico Plc.

For a case for negligence to be successfully brought against the company a number of elements need to be met. The first two are cause in fact and proximate (legal) cause. (Barker, 2001) Were the actions of Domestico Plc the cause of the injuries sustained by Melinda and the damage to her property It would seem that the answer is yes. This is assuming that the poorly skilled plumber, Albert, did not in some way damage the dishwasher as he installed it, or, secondly, that the second plumber did not damage it.

If these two are discounted then it is clear that the damage/injury would not have occurred "but for" the actions of Domestico Plc in not producing a safe dishwasher as is assumed under the Sales of Goods Act. Second, was Domestico Plc responsible for the proximate cause: how proximate, and thus foreseeable, were the injuries and damages incurred by Melinda because of the faulty dishwasher There is not any remoteness to the damages that she suffered: it was very foreseeable that a dishwasher that uses high pressure boiling water might cause severe injuries if