Commercial Law: Sales of Goods Act, Remedies, Liability, and Deceptive Practices

This article discusses the Sales of Goods Act, remedies available for buyers, liability of Delivery Fiji, defenses for Delivery Fiji, CTF's position, Smith's insolvency, and deceptive practices in commercial law.

Running head: COMMERCIAL LAW 1
Commercial law
Name
Institution

COMMERCIAL LAW 2
SALES OF GOODS ACT
Did the property and the risk indeed pass to Melissa, Smith and Misha once the
goods were left at CTF’s delivery area?
According to section 22 of the Fiji risk law, a good remains at the seller’s risk until the
property is transferred according to law1. According to this case, the transfer of property as
agreed by the contract, is supposed to happen after the goods are labeled and ownership changed
from CTF to Melissa, Smith and Misha. At exactly 9:05 am when the three boxes were delivered
and waiting to be picked by the truck, the delivery ownership of the goods had changed to the
three buyers2. It was, therefore, buyers’ duty to follow-up the progress of the truck and how their
goods were going to be delivered. According to the same section 22 of the Fiji commercial law,
whether the goods have been delivered or not, they are to be taken care of by the buyer once
ownership has changed. Ownership had changed when the three goods were labelled with the
names of the buyers which happened on 30th May at 9:00 a.m. At this point, transference of both
risk and ownership had happened. It is, therefore, true to note that at the delivery point, risks had
been transferred from CTF to the three buyers3.
What remedies are available for Melissa and Misha
The case of Melissa and Misha should be considered under section 31 of the commercial
law of Fiji4. The buyers have the audacity to reject the goods if they think it is not satisfying to
1 Bakshi, P. M. (2016). 41_The Sale of Goods Act, 1930
2 Commonwealth Secretariat. (2017). Commercial and company law and sustainable
development. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 43(3-4), 362-402.
3 Alt, K. T., & Pratt, K. M. (2014). Antitrust and Consumer Laws-Integral to All Business and
Legal Practice. Colo. Law., 43, 17.
4 Devi, P. U. M., & Rao, B. S. (2016). Consumer Protection Awareness-Role of Education.

COMMERCIAL LAW 3
what they ordered. In this case, according the contractual terms the buyer, Melissa and Misha
have gotten goods that are less than what they contracted. Melissa ordered for blue tiles but was
delivered purple colored cartons with tiles that she did not order for. This ground is enough to
reject the goods with reference to section 31 of the commercial law.
Under the sale of goods Act, there are conditions to be met in the sale of goods and
contracts. The implied terms include good correspondence with description, fit for the purpose
and match the exact sample that was supposed to be delivered5. In lieu of this act, it is evident
that the goods are not in correspondence with what both buyers requested. They, therefore, at
liberty to reject the products blaming the CTF Company of not corresponding and respecting the
contract.
Is Delivery Fiji liable to Melissa, Smith or Misha?
According to section 52 of the Fiji sales of goods act, under commercial, it is logical to
complain that delivery Fiji is liable to Melissa, Smith and Misha. It is true that the delivery of the
goods was in the possession of the three buyer in this case. They should, therefore, accept all the
risks that come with the delivery services6. At this point, section 31 delivery Fiji is not liable.
Their liability applies to section 51 of the Act. The Act states that, when the seller or the
deliverer, wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer, the buyer may take
action against the seller for the damages for non-delivery7. Neglect of duty by the security officer
5Davies, I. (2017). Retention of Title clauses in Sale of goods Contracts in Europe. Routledge.
6 Mańko, R. (2016). Contracts for online and other distance sales of goods.
7 Johnson, P. F. (2014). Purchasing and supply management. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

COMMERCIAL LAW 4
of CTF, who is attending to a relative, at the time the goods are getting lost, is evident enough to
make the delivery company liable to the three buyers.
The company delivery Fiji is liable to the three buyers based on the evidence produced in
section 31 of the sales ACT good. The buyer is responsible for the risk after delivery. The goods
at the delivery area are already transferred to the buyers. They should, therefore, organize on
how these goods are delivered but Melissa was willing to do it at a cheaper cost. The CTF and
the Fiji delivery, however, deny this contractual term. Having paid for the delivery, Delivery Fiji
should be responsible for all the delivery of the goods. However, they have seemingly failed and
thus Delivery Fiji is liable to all the three buyers8.
What remedies and defenses will Delivery Fiji advance in its favors?
All the sales and delivery were done according to the agreed contract involving all the
parties. It is from the contract that the Delivery Fiji received the instructions to deliver The
contract agreement has a clause which exempts itself from any forms of losses once the goods
are safely delivered. The acknowledgement of this clause through Melissa signing the document
is evidence enough to bail Delivery Fiji out of the case as a method defending themselves9.
According to section 30 of the sales of good Act, commercial law, depending on the
contract, possession of the goods should by the seller until the delivery is made to the buyer. In
this case, at 9:05 am, when the goods were at the delivery area, they were in possession of the
CTF and not Delivery Fiji10. When the intruder came in and stole one of the boxes, CTF should
take responsibility and not Delivery Fiji.
8 Howells, G., & Weatherill, S. (2017). Consumer protection law. Routledge.
9
10 Johnson, P. F. (2014). Purchasing and supply management. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

COMMERCIAL LAW 5
What arguments will CTF advance in its favour to dispute the various allegations
against them
CTF will definitely use the sales of goods Act 22 to their defense11. The good were
already at the delivery area and sealed according to the instructions of the buyer. So according to
CTF the goods had already been delivered and thus was the transfer or risk. With reference to
section 22, the goods were at the buyer’s risk and not the sellers risk. What according to the Act
is referred to as Risk prima facie passes with property.
In defense of their employee, they would say, it was right for the employee to engage the
relative since at that point the property was no longer at the jurisdiction of the CTF having
considered it delivered12.
Can CTF be exempted from all liabilities or are they liable to the buyers for their
loss
CTF are liable to all the three buyers for their losses. Legally the goods had not been
delivered. According to section 32 of the sales of goods act, the goods are only delivered when
the goods have reach the residential area of the buyer which the intended goods never reached13.
11 Duffy, J. F., & Hynes, R. (2016). Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual
Property. Va. L. Rev., 102, 1.
12 Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
13 Smits, J. (2016). New European Union Proposals for Distance Sales and Digital Contents
Contracts: Fit for Purpose?.

COMMERCIAL LAW 6
It is due to one of the employee of the CTF, that one box of tiles was stolen. Due to such
neglect of duty that lead to wrong property delivery and loss of one, the CTF is responsible for
the loss of the three clients14.
When Melissa requested for her own means and they rejected they remain the ones
responsible and therefore should accept and look for a quick remedy.
What is Smith’s position in this respect taking into consideration his insolvency
When only agreed payment of the delivered goods and the price are concurrent
conditions. The seller should be paid immediately after delivering the good the buyer so that the
exchange between the two is mutual15. Thus in respect of section 29 of the sales of goods ACT.
Since the delivery is done but Smith has been declared bankrupt, it is legal for CTF to find a way
of getting their products back, even before the installment cash is paid all to the company. Smith
will therefore have to return the delivery or pay for the goods, but since he has been declared
bankrupt according to the law he has to return the goods.
Are CTF and Delivery Fiji engaged in deceptive and misleading commercial practice
CTF and delivery Fiji are not engaged in deceptive and misleading commercial practice.
All the practices of the two companies are operational within commercial law. They consider all
the steps of sales of good from the first to the last. However, this case is only as a simple result
of negligence of duty and risk factors like the thief and Smiths bankruptcy. It is logical therefore
to note that the two companies operate very well but they had a bad day in office.
14 Lista, A. (2016). International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms.
Informa Law from Routledge
15 Ahmadu, M. L., & Hughes, R. (2017). Commercial Law and Practice in the South Pacific. Routledge-Cavendish

COMMERCIAL LAW 7
REFERENCES
Ahmadu, M. L., & Hughes, R. (2017). Commercial Law and Practice in the South Pacific.
Routledge-Cavendish.
Alt, K. T., & Pratt, K. M. (2014). Antitrust and Consumer Laws-Integral to All Business and
Legal Practice. Colo. Law., 43, 17.
Bakshi, P. M. (2016). 41_The Sale of Goods Act, 1930.

COMMERCIAL LAW 8
Commonwealth Secretariat. (2017). Commercial and company law and sustainable development.
Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 43(3-4), 362-402.
Davies, I. (2017). Retention of Title clauses in Sale of goods Contracts in Europe. Routledge.
Devi, P. U. M., & Rao, B. S. (2016). Consumer Protection Awareness-Role of Education.
Duffy, J. F., & Hynes, R. (2016). Statutory Domain and the Commercial Law of Intellectual
Property. Va. L. Rev., 102, 1.
Howells, G., & Weatherill, S. (2017). Consumer protection law. Routledge.
Johnson, P. F. (2014). Purchasing and supply management. McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
Lista, A. (2016). International Commercial Sales: The Sale of Goods on Shipment Terms.
Informa Law from Routledge.
Mańko, R. (2016). Contracts for online and other distance sales of goods.
Posner, R. A. (2014). Economic analysis of law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Smits, J. (2016). New European Union Proposals for Distance Sales and Digital Contents
Contracts: Fit for Purpose?.

COMMERCIAL LAW 9
Tushnet, M. (2017). Comparative constitutional law. In The Oxford handbook of comparative
law.