Consumer Law

?
View mindmap
  • Consumer Law
    • Sale of Goods Act 1979
      • Section 12
        • (1)
          • the seller implies that he has the right to sell the goods
        • (2)
          • there is an implied term that the goods shall be free from third party rights and that the buyer shall enjoy quiet (undisturbed) possession
        • Rowland v Divall (1923)
          • Rowland bought a car from Divall, who had stolen the car.  Rowland was then bound to return the car to it's true owner, and Rowland successfully sued Divall for the full price he had paid
      • Section 13
        • Where goods are sold by description, they must correspond with that description
        • Sales over the counter, even in self-service stores, are still sales by description because goods are described only by the package in which they are contained
        • A buyer will succeed under s13 even if he has seen and examined the goods providing the discrepancy between the description and reality could not have been discovered reasonably in the examination
        • Beale v Taylor (1967)
          • Taylor advertised a car as a particular model.  Beale inspected the car and bought it, and later discovered that it was half of the model it was advertised as welded to an older model.  Beale sued for damages under s13 and was awarded a full refund
      • Section 14
        • (2) as amended by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994
          • Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business (excludes private sales) the goods shall be of satisfactory quality except:  1. as regards any defects drawn to the buyer's attention        2. when the buyer examines the goods            and ought to have seen any defects.  Satisfactory quality is judged based on both the description and price of the goods and (under the 1994 Act) appearance and finish, durability, safety and freedom from minor defects
          • Wilson v Rickett Cockerell (1954)
            • Mrs Wilson was injured by the explosion of a detonator delivered in a sack of Coalite.  The Court of Appeal said that the consignment as a whole was not of satisfactory quality, and therefore Mrs Wilson was entitled to damages
        • (3)
          • Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business (excludes private sales) and the buyer expressly, or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are fit for that purpose
            • where the buyer does not make known his purpose for which he requires the goods, then the goods must be fit for the 'usual and obvious purpose'
          • Kendall v Lillico (1969)
            • Brazilian ground nut extraction was sold in order to be made into foodstuff for cattle and poultry.  All the turkeys fed on the extraction died.  There was a clear breach of s14(3) as the food was unfit for feeding poultry
          • Priest v Last (1903)
            • Priest purchased a hot water bottle from Last (without stating why he wanted it) which burst after the 5th use, having been filled with hot water.  The bottle was not fit for the usual and obvious purpose of filling with hot water.  Therefore, Last was in breach of s14(3) so damages were awarded
      • Section 15
        • (2)
          • (a)
            • the bulk must correspond exactly with the sample in quantity and
              • (b)
                • the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity to compare the bulk with the sample and
                  • (c)
                    • the goods shall be free of any defect rendering them  unsatisfactory and which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample
        • Ruben Ltd v Faire Bros Ltd (1949)
          • the sellers agreed to supply the buyers with a quantity of 'Linatex' in 41 ft rolls, 5 ft wide, in accordance with a small rubber sample.  The sample was flat and soft but the rubber delivered was crinkly and folded.  The buyers refused to accept delivery and were sued by the sellers.  It was decided that the product supplied was not exactly in accordance with the sample and so the sellers were in the breach of s15(2)(a)
    • Consumer Protection Act 1987
    • Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
      • Section 13
        • There is an implied term that the supplier will carry out his service with reasonable care and skill
        • E.g.
          • A mechanic who negligently forgets to tighten the wheel nuts so the wheel falls off, causing damage to the vehicle or injury to the owner.  His employer would be negligent under the Act
      • Section 14
        • Where the contract is silent on time, there is an implied term that the supplier will carry out his service within a reasonable time.
        • Charnock v Liverpool Corporation (1968)
          • Liverpool Corporation took a car to Charnock's garage for repair.  No delivery date was agreed and the repairs took 8 weeks.  The corporation sued for damages on the basis that the repairs took an unreasonable amount of time and the claim succeeded
      • Section 15
        • Where the contract is silent on price, there is an implied term that the consumer will pay a reasonable charge.  This provision will apply in particular to estimates, where the final bill is considerably higher that the original estimate.  The section will not apply to quotations, as these have to be accurate anyway
        • E.g.
          • A bathroom company has estimated £4000 for the cost of a complete new bathroom.  If the final bill was £4200, it would be reasonable, but if it was £6000, it would be unreasonable.  If it was quoted at £4000, that is all the customer has to pay

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

Unit 1 & 2
Teacher recommended
See all Law resources »See all Contract law resources »