-->

Introduction

Despite the growing awareness of most people of their consumer rights, there still exist certain circumstances that they may not know how to handle with regards to their privileges as buyers. It is therefore important that consumers be more conscious of their rights as buyers of goods. It is also a question as to the need of the free market system for additional protection from unfair contracts beyond general unfairness principles, applicable to all parties, to cite, the buyers and the sellers (Hamilton and Petty, 2004). Legal rules applicable with regards to consumer rights in the English contract include: Sale of Goods Act 1979, Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. For this matter, most useful set of rule is that of the ‘Sale of Goods Act 1994’.

Presented in this paper is an analysis of a given situation, an application of the relevant legal rules to the facts stated below and the applicable cases that would further support the case analysis.

Facts of the Case:

A consumer by the name of John purchased certain items in the Super Stores Ltd. during a sale in January. She bought a skirt with a sticker indicating a flaw in the fabric, a tweed jacket and a pair of fashion boots from the Designer Fashions Department. In the second-hand and Antiques Department, she bought a copy of the first edition of ‘Emma’ signed by John Aten. From the Furniture Department she purchased a glass-fronted cabinet. Within the last three weeks, the purchaser washed the skirt and it shrunk. She suffered from dermatitis from the tweed jacket. The soles of the fashion boots disintegrated while she was walking in a snow storm. She soon discovers that the book she bought is a fake and cost less than what she paid for. Finally, the glass-fronted cabinet has scratches on the side of it.

Issue:

Whether or not the Super Stores Ltd. violated the ‘Sale of Goods Act 1979’ or other legal rules regarding the purchasing of goods

Possible Actions:

As a consumer, John is protected under the ‘Sale of Goods Act 1979.’ The ‘Sales of Goods Act 1979’ gives consumer a chance to seek a partial or full refund if particular goods are prove to be faulty.

The consumer’s purchase of the skirt and the fashion boots falls under the same category. John purchased the skirt where there is an indication that there is indeed a flaw in the fabric. The boots however, was bought under a good condition and was only destroyed after John walked through a snow storm. The seller did in fact follow part two, subsection 14(2) (a) of implied terms about quality and fitness, which states:

(2) Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition-

(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made- or

(b) if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal.

The seller readily indicated the defect of the good, the skirt in particular, and such follows part two, subsection 13 (1) on sale by description which states:

(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description.

The good, in this case the skirt, achieved its state of shrunkeness after the purchase. The result of the washing is not considered as an inherent fault of the seller. To give a clear perspective, ‘inherent fault’ pertains to a fault or flaw that may not be noticeable immediately yet it was inherent at the time of sale, making the product of unsatisfactory standard. Where the consumer observes a fault upon the time of the purchase, the retailer is liable for the good. Such is considered an inherent fault at the time of the purchase. In this case however, there is nothing which could be considered as an inherent fault. The shrinking of the skirt took place after the purchase and as such is not the burden of the seller.

John could also opt to seek for replacement or repair of the product obtained. In such a case, the seller could accept that there was indeed an inherent fault. He could either offer a remedy or choose to stand by the fact that their product is not inherently flawed. The seller could inspect the product and evaluate the origin of the fault found in the product, in this case the skirt and the fashion boots and afterwards discusses the damage of the product, which would be reliable with it being mistreated to bring about the flaw of the sold product. It is understandable that the fashion boots could have had its soles disintegrated due to the snow storm. Such then is does not turn to the seller for the liability of the product.

In the case of the glass-fronted cabinet where a defect is found after the purchase, and the case of the tweed jacket, where the buyer obtained dermatitis, the consumer could return, exchange or ask for repairs of the said item. Part three, subsection 14, rule 5 indicate that:

Rule 4

When goods are delivered to the buyer on approval or on sale or return or other similar terms the property in the goods passes to the buyer:

(a) when he signifies his approval or acceptance to the seller or does any other act adopting the transaction;

(b) if he does not signify his approval or acceptance to the seller but retains the goods without giving notice of rejection, then, if a time has been fixed for the return of the goods on the expiration of that time, and if no time has been fixed, on the expiration of a reasonable time.

The trader remains liable for any breaches of contract, for example the goods being faulty. The seller could end up with the liability of compensation the buyer for even up to six years. The same law as stated in the case of the fashion boots and the skirt could be applied in the return of the item. Discovery of an inherent flaw would require the purchaser to return goods as soon as possible in order to avoid presuming that the goods are good enough for the purchaser. Specifically, the law does not provide a definite time. Money-backs vary depending on the sales. Certain factors are taken into consideration in order to be fair to all sides.

One may seek damages amounting to the amount of money that is necessary in order to have the goods repaired or replaced. Frequently retailers will themselves offer repair or replacement. Consumers have the statutory right to seek for repair or replacement as alternative to looking for damages.

Items on sale could be returned depending on the reason of wanting to return the item. The Sale of Goods Act still applies, but does not entitle for a refund, for as mentioned above, if there is a previous knowledge of the fault of the good. One is also not entitled to refund for the mere fact of not liking the goods.

In the case of the book ‘Emma’ by John Aten, which the consumer found out as fraud, she could resort to the section of the ‘Sale of Goods Act 1979’, pertaining to the appropriateness of pricing. Part two, subsection 9 (1) (2) indicates that:

Agreement to sell at valuation

(1) Where there is an agreement to sell goods on the terms that the price is to be fixed by the valuation of a third party, and he cannot or does not make the valuation, the agreement is avoided; but if the goods or any part of them have been delivered to and appropriated by the buyer he must pay a reasonable price for them.

(2) Where the third party is prevented from making the valuation by the fault of the seller or buyer, the party not at fault may maintain an action for damages against the party at fault.

One thing that must also be pointed out is the overpricing of the store for the fraud of the book. Hence, the price of the said book must be in accordance for its real value. Part two, subsection 8 (3) indicates that:

(3) What is a reasonable price is a question of fact dependent on the circumstances of each particular case.

In this particular matter, the question on the certainty of the price of the book must be determined for what its real worth is. It is upon the initiative of the consumer to seek for the rightful price and upon the initiative of the seller to please the consumer.

Reference

Colbey, Richard (1999) Which Side is Which. New Statesman, October 11, 1999, p.23.

Hamilton, Jennifer and Ross D. Petty (2004) Seeking a Single Policy for Contractual Fairness to Consumers: A Comparison of U. S. and E. U. Efforts. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38 (1), 146+

Sale of Goods Act 1979 Available at (http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/england.sale.of.goods.act.1979/doc)