HND 商务契约关系 outcome1.docVIP

Case 1 Q1：Maggie 没受伤，她是否有权利起诉SELLER；商品是in a sale,是否影响MAGGIE的权利？ （买方和卖方的关系） A1：1，Yes, she can do that. 2，The basic law is the seller violation the Implied Terms of SOGA 1979. It is include four terms. Section 12 SOGA 1979 Implied Terms of Title Section 13 SOGA 1979 Sale by Description Section 14 SOGA 1979 Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for Purpose. Section 15 SOGA 1979 Sale by Sample This case was violation Section 14 SOGA 1979.Section 14 implied two terms: Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for the Purpose. The major violation of this case is Satisfactory Quality. ⑴The standard of Section 14 of SOGA 1979 is “that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant)and all other relevant circumstances”. ⑵There are factors that are listed in Section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases: ☉Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied. ☉Appearance and finish ☉Freedom from minor defects ☉Safety and ☉Durability ⑶In this case, the tumble dryer is lack of safety and durability. Maggie just bought it two months, so it still a new tumble dryer. It was caught fire. Clearly, it is lack of durability. The tumble is a latent defect in the wiring that lead to detonate. So we said it is lack of safety. 3,Maggie bought the tumble dryer in a sale, but it does not diminish the buyer’s rights unless they are classed as “seconds” etc or a particular defect is brought to the attention of the buyer as being the reason for the reduction in price. Maggie did not know the bug of the tumble dryer before she buy it. So Maggie’ s rights should not be diminished. 4,◎The cited case is Thomson v J Sears ＆Co(1926), the pursuer purchased boots for himself and suffered periostosis of the foot as a result of the insole having crumpled up and become knotted and nodular. It should be obvious that the boots were