Business Law: Sales of Goods Act and Mr. John's Consumer Rights

This report provides a detailed analysis of a business law case involving Mr. John's purchase of a television set. It explores the application of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, focusing on implied terms, statutory provisions related to property transfer, and the remedies available to both buyers and sellers. The report examines Mr. John's rights when the TV malfunctions, the store's responsibilities, and the legal recourse available. It covers aspects like satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose, product liability for faulty goods, and the transfer of property in goods. The report also discusses the remedies available under the Act, including the rights of an unpaid seller, the buyer's right to damages, specific performance, and breach of warranty. The content is designed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal principles and practical applications within the context of a consumer goods transaction, highlighting the importance of consumer rights and the obligations of businesses under the law.

INTRODUCTION TO
BUSINESS LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
MAIN BODY..................................................................................................................................3
Mr John on legal rule with implied term in relation of sale of goods and supply of services.....3
Discuss about the perception of Mr John and give advice on the statutory provisions in
context of property transfer or possession..................................................................................5
Statutory Provisions regarding buyer and seller’s remedies under sale of goods contract act....6
Product liability statutory provisions for faulty goods................................................................8
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................10

INTRODUCTION
Business Law pertains to multiple aspects and scenarios that arise in different business
situations and how different legal acts give protection and punishment to the parties responsible.
Sales of Goods Act, 1979; predominantly is the major business law that will be discussed and
implemented in the current report (Aboukdir, 2017). The case of Mr. John will be discussed in
the following report and different aspects of legal consultation will be presented before him
regarding to what are the different statutory provisions as established in the Act. Further, the
solutions and remedies that are available to him as well as the legal course of action that can be
taken by him will also be discussed in the report consecutively.
MAIN BODY
Mr John on legal rule with implied term in relation of sale of goods and supply of services.
Overview of the case
Mr John have the purchasing of TV set from the store replacing the old TV set at his
home. By getting up with proper description from the store manager, John have been impressed
by one of television set which have been offered as the best quality in good value of money. The
television in 42 inches installed by the engineer.
Later on, after three weeks of the installations of the television set, a Sunday noon their
television flash and smoke out puffing coming out of the screen (Mildred, M, 2020). At the time
of complaint store manager have refused to providing the replacement and taking up any
responsivity regarding television.
According to the contract between John and departmental store have to looking into the
essential’s elements for the sale of good contracts which are present for case. They are such as
 John have proposed the offer to the departmental store
 Departments store has acceptance of offers
 John have intentions regarding purchasing of TV set and departments store have intention
to sell out the television set.
 John and store manager have the capacity to enter into contract.
As per the satisfaction of the above statement, they both have successful entered into the
contract. So, john have the right to claim up against the departments store. There will be
implication of implied term under contract from the section of 12 to 15.
Sale of Goods Act 1979:
3

The sale of good acts has requirements over looking into requires good described as
satisfactory quality and fit in purpose. On satisfactory quality is helping out to detect of any
issues which is made up very clear while purchasing the goods (Soyer and Tettenborn, 2016). In
addition, ale of good have look into fit for purpose fail to fulfil any condition then the retailer
will be considered as breaches of contracts. On the other hand the buyer have rights to claim
against goods under the sale of goods act.
As per the section 12 which clearly implies as when the product purchased by the buyer
in online terms. There is need for the good to be titles having sole of seller. The seller has no
titles of good so there is no right to sell the goods. The good have need to be free from the
burden.
Section 13- good must have the clear descriptions needed to be provided by the seller to
buyer regarding all related term and condition. According it does not have has right to claim
for the damages. In the case of John have the right to claim for up for damages because the
entertainments set have been no prepared as manager description.
Section 14 is about the good sold by sellers regarding quality satisfaction and fit in it. If
it’s not fit in purpose then consumer have right to make out claims regarding the loss he have
suffered (Akrami, Yusoff. and Isa, 2018). As per the case of john, he too has the rights claiming
for loss under section because the TV was not set in quality of satisfaction.
Section 14(2) Quality
As per this section, there is need of good to be satisfactory quality. If goods to be found
faulty within period of six months of the purchase, in such situation, good have to be considered
as faulty from the day of purchase. Trader have to considered to have breaches the contracts with
consumer. In case of the John, the TV broke out within the 3 weeks of purchase so the good will
be considered as faulty one and the store manager have breached the contract.
Section 14(3) fitness for purpose
So product tends to be fit for purpose whenever it is made and brought. As in the present
case, TV have stopped to work within 3 weeks for its purchase. In such situation, there will be
implication as per sale of goods act that the TV set was faulty from the day of the purchase. On
the other hand, seller have requirement to repair or replace the television set.
On the other hand, section 15, if the good which are for the seller in the bulk, then seller have
obligation for selling up goods in bulk quality (Aboukdir, 2017). It is very important to note
4

that the Sale of good act have been replaced by the consumer rights in the year 2015 and come
into force on 1 October 2015. The consumer act has their little bit change regarding the right of
returning faulty goods or get into refunds, replacement/repair, and gives new rights while having
the digital content.
Discuss about the perception of Mr John and give advice on the statutory provisions in context
of property transfer or possession
As per given scenario, it has found that Mr John face the issue or problem regarding the TV
replacement by store manager. Initially, they have identified that overall working of New TV is
fine but suddenly, store manager has not taken responsibility of any faults in TV sets (Sérafin,
2019). In this way, it has been analysed that Mr John focus on the statutory provision while
handling the property transfer processes and their possession.
This type of Statutory Provision can apply by Mr. John
Section 16: it is based on the product related ownership such as TV, through this section, it will
help for passing products from one individual person to others. If they have ascertained.
Section 17: it is an essential for maintain or control goods that must determine but their
ownership will pass, if both store manager and Mr John have intension related passing.
Section 18: there are five common rules applicable but it also passed goods if store manager and
Mr John will be representing the passing intention.
 Rule-1 The particular good such as TV, when selling their product by person on the basis
of unconditional contract and afterwards, it will pass contract on the basis of current
situation or condition.
 Rule-2 it applicable on the condition which imposed on the basis of goods for passing
and applied necessary condition that have completed through individual one’s.
 Rule-3 it will transfer the ownership on TV and also weighed or measured.
Section 19: selling the TV and John also give equal right of retaining proper title and Mr John of
goods.
Section 20: The store manager will be selling TV to Mr John in order to reduce the possibilities
of risk in context of goods and passing to the buyer.
Transfer of property in Goods
It is mainly focused on the particular property of product which can be transferred from
Store manager to Mr John, acquires proprietary rights over goods. It is important aspect of
5

“property in Goods” which means that “ownership of Goods”, identify appropriate “possession
of goods” which means to define the physical custody of goods. These are different way to
examine the contract between both parties.
In goods from seller to buyers, it applicable transfer of property which means to protect the
contract between both parties. Therefore, this moment when property in goods passes from Store
manager to Mr John. Additionally, there are some common significant for identifying reason
behind the transfer of property.
 Ownership: it is initial phase for passing the goods from seller to buyers and then
afterwards buyers acquire ownership of goods. In this process, Mr John can exercise the
proprietary right over goods (Sérafin, 2019). For Example- Mr. John can interact with
store manager to purchase new TV and seller give assurance to provide the item at buyers
home.
 Risk follows ownership- It applicable as general rule in which follows procedures that
help for delivering the particular product while reaching at destination. In case, TV as
goods are identified as damage, loss shall be handle by person who have been delivered
the goods to buyer (Sérafin, 2019). All responsibilities of seller to protect or secure the
particular goods in proper manner.
Statutory Provisions regarding buyer and seller’s remedies under sale of goods contract act
The Sales of Goods Act, 1979 develops a series of provision for both buyers and sellers
accordingly where in case of breach in the contract of sale, there are adequate remedies available
for both buyers as well as sellers in the market (Campbell, 2019). In the case of John versus the
Department Store as well, there are different remedies that can be exercised. First of all statutory
provision will be discussed under the Sales of Goods Act, 1979:
Remedies Available to Seller:
Under Section 39 of Sales of Goods Act, 1979, the rights of an unpaid seller have been
details stating that the seller has every right to retain the goods i.e. exercise a lien on them if the
goods are under seller’s possession. Further the seller also has the right to stop the goods if they
are in transit and also resale the goods if the conditions from the buyer’s side are not held up
(McKendrick, 2020).
Against the buyers, the Section 49 of the Act state that the sellers are entitled to claim
price of the goods from buyers if goods have been sold to them and from the third party in case
6

the breach occurs and goods are of perishable nature. As per Section 50, in case of non-
acceptance of goods as well, the sellers have the right to claim appropriate amount from the
buyer of third party (Taylor, 2018). These are the remedies that are legally available to the sellers
in case if breach arises in the contract on the behalf of the buyer in the contract.
Remedies available to Buyer:
There are multiple remedies that are available to buyer as well which can be detailed in
the following manner:
Section 51 of the Act states that buyer is liable to receive damages against the non-
delivery of goods on the behalf of the seller of the goods and the amount of damages is estimated
on the basis of difference of contract price and market price of goods. Section 52 specifies that
buyer also has the right of Specific Performance where court can order contract to be performed
specifically and remove the option of paying only damages and retaining the goods to the seller
in the case (Tettenborn, 2019).
Further section 53 presents remedy against breach of warranty where if seller breaches
the condition that was presented on the behalf of seller than the buyer is authorised to sue the
seller for such breach or either claim the price to be diminished or removed altogether against the
goods (Enakireru and Airen, 2020). Further an amendment in this section states that if the goods
delivered are not in accordance with the quality that was promised to the buyer, then also buyer
has the right to claim damages only and the amount of damage is ascertained on the basis of
difference in the market price of that product and the current value of the product.
Present case of John versus Departmental Store:
In the present case of John however, it is evident that the breach did not occur from the side
of buyer but from the side of seller themselves. Although there is no direct breach of contract
because all the conditions were fulfilled i.e. a contract was entered into where offer and
acceptance both were given against the consideration and goods were also delivered accordingly.
However, it is evident that there has been a breach in the implied conditions of the contract.
As per the Section 16 of Sales of Goods Act, 1979; it is clearly mentioned that if the seller fails
to deliver the products as per the quality of fitness that was promised to the buyer, then a breach
in contract occurs. This also acts as an exception to the law of Caveat Emptor where if buyer
relies on the judgement of the seller regarding the quality and description of the product and buys
7

it in good faith then, it is the duty of the seller to supply with the described goods accordingly
(Ahmed and Hussein, 2017).
Since in the present case, the Department Store although had no implicit or explicit contract
with the buyer regarding warranty or guarantee of the product after it had been sold and further,
it was even mentioned in a contract that seller’s will not be liable for any damages in the product
after it had been delivered, it cannot be held directly liable for the product (Pawlowski and
Brown, 2020). However due to the breach of implied conditions of warranty, it is evident that the
TV damages within a week of its installation which is a direct breach of the promises that were
made by the seller regarding its fitness and quality. This therefore, holds the seller i.e.
departmental store liable party in accordance with the breach of contract.
Therefore, it can be clearly stated that as per the provisions, the buyer i.e. Mr. John in this
case is authorised to claim only the damages on the product i.e. TV and he cannot repudiate the
goods or terminate the contract as it has already been fulfilled on behalf of both the parties.
Product liability statutory provisions for faulty goods
Product liability is a legal liability term in which manufacturer, suppliers, distributor,
retailers etc. are held responsible for faulty or defective goods. Product liability comes under
Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Hassall, 2018). This law provides consumers with a legal
recourse where they can claim for damage or injury caused to any part of product. However,
product liability depends upon individual case. If injury is caused by negligence then the person
who neglected their roles and responsibility will be held responsible. Product liability directive
helps in providing rights to customers who suffer damage.
In case of Mr. Jhon, if the product was defective when it was sold then both manufacture
and seller can be held responsible. Mr. john could have easily held responsible for selling
defective product. But in this case when the product was sold it was fine and was working
perfectly. But after three weeks flash and puffs of smoke coming out of the TV. In this case there
are two possible cases. In fist case if any one of the internal parts of TV got damaged and
resulted in spark creation and destroyed TV then for this both manufacture and seller can be held
responsible. They are liable to replace Mr. Jhon’s TV. But in the other case, if due to excessive
voltage or current one of the parts of TV got damaged and resulted in complete damage of TV
set then in such case manufacture and seller cannot be held responsible and liable. But in this
case seller and manufacturer are liable for the damaged goods and has the liability to replace TV.
8

This is because before purchasing Mr Jhon was assured that it was a high- quality TV set and it
was even written on it. So, in this case they can be held responsible and have a liability to replace
the TV.
Claim for product liability can be claimed on basis of four liabilities like: claim under the
Consumer Protection Act which is most commonly preferred, Common law action for
negligence, breach of contract (Mildred, ed., 2020). If product was damaged or claimant suffered
damage then it cones under consumer protection act. Common law action for negligence comes
in action when claimant suffered loss or suffered property damage due to damage of product.
Lastly, breach of contract comes into picture when claimant claim for breach of contract against
the seller. Consumer Rights Act, provides that when product is sold then it should have
satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and Goods must be as described. In this case, it
can be breach of contract under that fact that product was not as it was described. It means when
Mr Jhon purchased the product it was described as a high- quality product but when it was
purchased within three weeks it got damaged that clearly shows that it was not as it was
described. Under this condition Mr. Jhon can claim product liability under Breach of contract.
CONCLUSION
From the above file it can be concluded as the sale of good acts has requirements over
looking into requires good described as satisfactory quality and fit in purpose. As per the section
12 the good have need to be free from the burden. In addition to which Section 13 In the case of
John have the right for claim for damages because entertainment set is not set according with
manager description. The report also concludes for important note that the sale of good act has
been replaced with consumer rights in the year 2015 and come into force on 1 October 2015.
where as in aspect of “property in Goods” meaning out to have “ownership of Goods”, identify
appropriate “possession of goods” which means to define with the physical custody of goods.
there is also discussion on Product liability as a legal liability term in which manufacturer,
suppliers, distributor, retailers etc. are held responsible for faulty or defective goods. Hence
report will also include the statuary provision for buyer and seller’s remedies with the sale for
goods contract.
9

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Aboukdir, A., 2017. The Timing of the Passing of Risk Under the English Sale of Goods Act
1979, the Interplay between the Principle of Party Autonomy and the Default Rule:
Should the Risk Linked to the Passing of Property or to the Situation of the
Goods?. Available at SSRN 2999446.
Ahmed, B.A. and Hussein, H.H., 2017. Avoidance of Contract as a Remedy under CISG and
SGA: Comparative Analysis. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 61, p.126.
Akrami, F., Yusoff, S.S.A. and Isa, S.M., 2018. Open Price Term under the United Kingdom
Sale of Goods Act 1979. Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat.
Campbell, D., 2019. Market damages in sales of goods and their relationship to the general
principles of remedies for breach of contract. In Research Handbook on Remedies in
Private Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
ENAKIRERU, E.O. and Airen, A.I., 2020. THE NATURE OF TRANSFER OF RISK IN SALE
OF GOODS CONTRACTS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS. The Nnamdi Azikiwe University
Journal of Commercial and Property Law, 7(1).
Hassall, S., 2018. Are UK product liability laws sufficient for the integration of autonomous
vehicles? (Doctoral dissertation, University of Glasgow).
McKendrick, E. ed., 2020. Sale of Goods. Taylor & Francis.
Mildred, M. ed., 2020. Product liability: law and insurance. Taylor & Francis.
Pawlowski, M. and Brown, J., 2020. Sale of land and personal property: The purchaser as
beneficial owner?. Trust Law International, 34(2), pp.63-73.
Sérafin, S., 2019. Transfer by Contract at Common Law and in Equity. Queen's LJ, 45, p.81.
Soyer, B. and Tettenborn, A., 2016. What is a reasonable contract of carriage for CIF/CIP
purposes?–section 32 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In International Trade and
Carriage of Goods (pp. 43-54). Informa Law from Routledge.
Taylor, S., 2018. UK Sale of Goods Legislation 1893-2015: Towards Plain (er).
Taylor, S., 2018. UK Sale of Goods Legislation 1893-2015: Towards Plain (er) Language?. ASp.
la revue du GERAS, (74), pp.95-112.
10

Tettenborn, A., 2019. Abstract damages in international sale contracts-when should they be
available?. In Research Handbook on International and Comparative Sale of Goods Law.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Online
Sale of Goods Act.2020.[online]Available through:<
https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/sale-of-goods-act>
Sale of Goods Act 1979.2019.[online]Available through:< https://financial-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sale+of+Goods+Act+1979>
11

12