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

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.