sales of goods act

1427 Words6 Pages
In the case study above involving Divine Fragrances, I will discuss legal procedures they could possibly face from Mary, Myrtle and Bench World. Furthermore, outline recommendations for Divine Fragrances as regarding their work policies and ethics to prevent such a mishap from occurring in the future. 1. Identify the various aspects of legal liabilities that are present in the scenario and list them. a) Mary- Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, Negligence b) Myrtle – Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, c) Bench World – Negligence, d) Agnes Ponsonby Smythe – No liabilities e) Junior blender - Capacity 2. Fully explain the liabilities involved by applying legal rules to support arguments in each instance Mary and Myrtle under the sales of goods act section 14 (2), can sue Divine Fragrances for breach of product satisfactory quality. Section 14 (2) of the sales of goods act provides that when a seller sells goods in the course of his business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied are under the contract of satisfactory quality. The inclusion of the 1994 supply of goods act section 14 (2A) further implies that a product is of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. Furthermore section 14 (2B) lists safety and freedom from minor defects as principal factors when judging if a product sold by the seller is of satisfactory quality (Kelly, et all, 2004, pp 221). From the case study we are informed that both Mary and her client Myrtle suffered from blisters arising from the use of the oil product supplied by Divine. Thus, making the product unfit for the purpose it was made for. Likewise in the case of Rogers v Parish (Scaborough) ltd, it was ruled that a defective engine, gearbox and bodywork were all below the standard required of such a

More about sales of goods act

Open Document