Business Law - - Term Paper Example

Joseph buys a Tefal Pan Actifry. The pan catches fire and burns the members of the family. There are three questions, the first question pertains to the moral obligation which the company owes him, the second question pertains to negligence of the product and the third question pertains to the legal contract between Joseph and the product seller. Joseph Price was a purchaser of Tefal Actifry. He contended to the quality and way the product was made, and therefore the company was under a moral and legal obligation to sell him good quality product.

However, in the use of the product, it turned out to be a faulty one and therefore under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the consumer, which in this case is Joseph Price, has a right to avail from the manufacturers of the faulty goods, which in this case is Tefal Actifry. Under the law laid down in Section 48 (b) of the Sale of Goods Act, it is pertinent to note that the law allows the consumer to file for complaints when the goods sold by the seller turns out to be faulty and wrongly made. Acting on behalf of Jospeph as his legal advisor, I would advise him to file a suit against Tefal Actifry and hold them liable under Section 48 (b) in which case they shall be punished by the Court of law.

The seller in this case has to replace the goods since the actifry turned out to be non-functional, dangerous, and extremely faulty for the people who use it. Even though the company claims that only 0.4 per cent of the products are faulty, it does not rule out the fact that those who used it and in the case my client Joseph Price, and to those it had turned out to be faulty, the company should incur the damages and replace the faulty product with a better fool proof product. In the case of Bowes v Richardson & Son Ltd, 28 January 2004 the consumer was allowed to reject the faulty car after a period of 7 months.

Dave and Sandra (Joseph’s parents) suffered burns and a lung