Question 1. Issue: In the present question, the issue arises if Charlie can sue EnviroPro Pty Ltd. under thegeneral contract rules which include the Sale of Goods Act, Victoria as a big sign has beenposted by EnviroPro Pty Ltd, which excludes their liability for any damages except thereplacement of goods that are proved to be faulty at the time of sale. Rule: The Sale of Goods Act (Victoria) only applies to the sale of goods. In this legislation, adistinction has been made between consumer and non-consumer contracts. In case of consumercontents, this legislation provides that the terms that are similar to the terms that have beenimplied by Trade Practices Act are applicable. This legislation is applicable only in case of thecontracts that have been made in Victoria. However there are similar legislations in place inother States of Australia.According to this legislation, a consumer contract has been described as a contract related withthe sale of goods that is less than $20,000 or is related with the sale of goods that are generallyacquired for domestic, personal on household use and when such words have not been purchasedfor resale or to be used as inputs in manufacture. There are certain terms that are implied by theGoods Act. These include a condition that the goods match the description, where there is a saleby description. The terms can be implied in a contract for the sale of goods, where the purchaserhas expressly or impliedly made known to the seller regarding the purpose for which he or she ispurchasing the goods (Trade Practices Commission v Radio World Pty Ltd., 1989). Similarly, itis also applicable when such circumstances are present under which the seller knows or shouldhave known that the buyer is relying on the skill or judgment of the seller. In this way, section 20
provides an implied condition that the goods sold by the seller will be fit for purpose under theabove-mentioned circumstances. The requirement regarding fitness for purpose overlaps with theimplied condition of merchantable quality (David Jones v Willis). Similarly, the court stated inGriffiths v Peter Conway that the buyer should have revealed that particular purpose behind thepurchase to the seller. Application: In the present case, there is a large sign present at the entrance of Enviro Pty Ltd,which excludes the liability of the company for any damages except the replacement of thegoods that have been established as being faulty when we were sold. However in the presentcase, Charlie had clearly told. The salesperson of the company that he wants to have his owndrinking water source added the product was good for this purpose. In this way, Charlie haddisclosed the purpose for the purchase of goods. The salesperson assured Charlie that it was agood product. However, in reality, the water produced by Clean Aqua was not fit for drinkingpurpose. Therefore after using this water for drinking and cooking purposes, Charlie falls sickand he has to miss work for five weeks, and the answer develops irritable bowels syndrome dueto which his long-term quality of life will be affected. Hence in this case, there has been a breachof condition which requires that the goods should be fit for purpose.Conclusion: Under these circumstances, it can be included that Charlie has a good case againstEnviroPro Pty Ltd under the general rules of contract and also the Sale of Goods Act (Vic).
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
The Impact of Exclusion Clause | Assignmentlg...
Contract Law Case against EnviroPro Ptylg...
Contract Law and Sale of Goods Act | Assignmentlg...
Sale of Goods Act and Contract Law Assignmentlg...