LAW 22406 Commercial law | Holmes University Australia

ISSUE

Theresa, a jewelry producer, and retailer visited Boris' premises to buy a number of platinum ingots. Boris checked his PC stock records which expressed that he had precisely seven platinum ingots in stock in his secure extra space. On hearing this Theresa consented to buy every one of the seven of the platinum ingots as they were as of now sought after thus costs were rising. The cost was concurred at £21 per gram to be weighed by Boris preceding despatch so as to decide the cost. Despatch was orchestrated Monday of the next week with installment to be made inside 10 days of despatch.

When Boris inspected the secure storage on the next morning they found that 3 of them stole by thieves so he cancels the contract with Theresa. After that, the remaining gold purchased by another dealer.

EurofixLtd, a gems maker, buys the entirety of its gold using a credit card standing from Boris. Euro fix Ltd as of now has ten conveyances of 18-carat gold wire from Boris in its ownership, every one of these conveyances having been provided under a different agreement during the previous a half year. The all-out cost of the ten conveyances was £50,000. The latest two of these ten conveyances, the all-out cost for which is £8,000, have still not been paid for. Installment for such two conveyances has been expected for various weeks. The staying eight conveyances have all been paid for albeit some measure of installment has been expected from EurofixLtd to Boris all through the previous a half year.

They added a clause in the contract that goods only passs to the customers after the payment by the client. Eurofix ltd refuses to pay the gold purchasesrom Boris on the credit terms. Boris purchae second hand van from Angela by paying a sum of £7,000 in cash.

Fourteen days prior Boris visited the premises of Elizabeth, another discount provider of valuable metals. Elizabeth had disclosed to Boris ahead of time of his visit that she would be out of the nation however that her new administrator, Jacob, would be responsible for deals.

Jacob asked Boris whether he would be keen on purchasing five rhodium coins. Boris was exceptionally astounded to be asked this as Elizabeth had as of late revealed to him that she would not sell rhodium coins to anybody as she was sure that their worth would increment significantly in the following year. When Boris disclosed this to Jacob, Jacob revealed to Boris that Elizabeth had actually affirmed the deal to Boris thus Boris joyfully consented to get them. Jacob had totally misjudged Elizabeth's guidelines since she had instructed him not to sell any rhodium coins, not even to Boris.

Elizabeth refused to return the coins to its owner that is Boris and the worth of that coins is double the value paid by her.

A year prior Boris bought three silver ingots from Leo for £2,500 each. Leo knew that Boris proposed to offer these ingots to adornments makers, in spite of the fact that Leo was additionally certain that Boris had no specific clients at the top of the priority list when buying them. Boris held the ingots for a half year before at last offering them to three separate gems makers. Every maker at that point announced that the silver had numerous compound pollutions which altogether diminished the scope of standard gems things that it could be made into. Thus, the three silver ingots are as one worth just £3000.

In any case, Boris' clients, the three gems producers, are quick to stay on great footing with Boris. They are in this manner glad to utilize the silver for different purposes and have affirmed that they won't bring any cases against Boris. Boris is in any case requesting remuneration from Leo.

RULE

As per the sales of goods act 1979, things that meet the criteria of this act will fall under this particular act and the individual will get relaxations. This act applies to the sale of goods occur after 1st January 1989. There should be a contract of sale, the capacity of bu and sell among the buyer and the seller. The way of creating the contract of sale and also dealing for the existing or future goods.

For forming a contract of sale, there should be contract of sale of goods among the buyer and the seller to get cover in this act. A seller or buyer forms a contract of selling something for consideration. It is essential to have a contract of sale that must be in the absolute or conditional form. The property should transfer from the seller to the buyer after carrying out the contract of sale.

It is also essential to check the capacity of a buyer and the seller before initiating the sale of agreement or the contract. There should be no minor or mentally challenged person involved in the sale of the contract. Also, the goods in the contract of sale are suitable for the life that is for the necessity of a user.

The form of a contract should be in written form as oral contracts are considered valid in the eyes of law.  No action of the parties to contract to affect other laws and the regulations which disregard its capacity to enter in this sale of the contract.

The goods contracted  in the sale of agreement can be for the existing or future gods which maybe produce at a certain date during the tenure of the contract.

The contract gets null and void if the contact sale is for the perished goods and that gets spoiled before the delivery date.

According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Consumer Rights Act, 2015 certain guidelines are there for the death of hazard, chance incorporates the danger of burglary, harm or misfortune to the product (5). This will rely upon whether the purchaser is a buyer or not. To move the responsibility for, Section 16 of the SGA necessitates that the merchandise is explicit or discovered to be moved to the purchaser. The expression "explicit merchandise" is characterized as "products recognized and concurred on at the time an agreement of offer is made". The purchaser and dealer have recognized the merchandise and concurred on, the seven platinum ingots. Under Section 17(1) SGA, an expectation to pass property is required.

Denning LJ explained the rule “Nemo dat quod inhabit” in the case of Bishopgate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd v Transport Brakes Ltd (1949). In general, the rule states that a seller who has no right over the goods cannot pass the title to a third party. The exceptions to the Nemo dat rule include; (1) Estoppel (2) Mercantile Agency (3) Sales in Market Overt (4) Sales under a Voidable Title (5) Sale by A Seller in Possession (6) Sale of Vehicles Let on Hire purchase.

As per Consumer right act 2015, the rights and duties of a user is given to avoid the situation of malpractices and frauds with the right of a user[6]. The current act divides into various aspects such as contract of goods, digital content, and services, unfair terms and malpractices.

This act says that the goods to falls under this act should be of high quality, exactly matching the expectations of the consumer and described as per their specifications. Anything not related to these will account for further investigation.

In case of defective goods offers to a consumer, they have the right to reject the same in a span of total 30 days from the date of receiving the delivery.

ANALYSIS

Considering the current case of boris and other buyers deal with this seller such as thersa, eurofix and another ones will cover as per the sale of goods act. The case of boris mathes  the criteria of forming  a valid sale under the sale of goods act.

Boris was into a mitual or oral agreement with all the buyers for dealing with different things wgich are valid as per the sale of goods act. T is essential for him to form a written contract to consider as a legit in the eyes of law.

As per Section 17(2) extends and illustrates that the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. Applying this to the instant case, Theresa has agreed to purchase and on the other hand, Boris agreed on a price. However, he is still bound to weigh the goods and the act has not been done in the presence of the buyer. As a result, the property has not passed yet. Bearing in mind that the buyer is a jewelry manufacturer and retailer which sums up that she is a consumer.

Section 29(2) of the Consumers Act 2015 provides that the goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of the buyer. Thus, the risk is to be on Boris until it comes to the physical possession of Theresa.

Boris now intends to sell the remaining ingots to another customer at a higher price. Euro fix Ltd, a jewelry manufacturer, purchases all of its gold on credit terms from Boris. However, the Euro fix has not paid for two deliveries which cannot be specifically identified. Further to the previous definition of Section 17(1) of the SGA, Section 19(1) goes further and provides that the seller can reserve the right of disposal of goods until certain conditions are met by the buyer. Despite this, the most obvious condition would be that the property is reserved to themselves until payment has been made. For Boris to claim the goods, the goods shall remain unsold, identifiable and in their original form. Since there is a regular supply of the same goods from Boris to Euro fix ltd, it can be challenging for Boris to identify which goods have been paid for and which are unpaid yet. Therefore, the principle noted in Hendy Lennox is unlikely to be helpful. Boris provided a clause known as “all monies clause” in which it states that the buyer shall pay all indebtedness for the beneficial title in the goods to pass to him. Boris can argue that even where Euro fix has paid in full for the previous deliveries, he still owes money in respect of another consignment of goods. However, usually, these clauses create a charge and are void if not registered. The House of Lords held in the case of Armour that the all-monies clause does not create a charge. To elaborate, the case Cough Mill pointed that, retention of title clauses would not generally necessitate registering, and this is because they merely act to prevent the property in the goods from passing until the payment has been made. It is fair to conclude that Boris.

The issue, in this case, is, the van which Boris has contracted to purchase from Angela is now sold to Priti. Priti has the van although the title to it is claimed by Nodeal Finance Ltd. Angela has disappeared.

As per the consumer right act 2015, the buyers had contracted with Boris will get right to compensate the sale proceedings due to the malpractices of Boris[8]. The defective goods received by the buyer will have the right to replace it within a total span of 30 days after receiving the final delivery of the product.

CONCLUSION

It is summarized from the above case that Boris is not guilty of paying the compensation to the buyer in absence of a valid selling or buying agreement, The agreement between the buyer and the seller should be valid and written. As a buyer, he has a right to recover the money for the amount paid for Van to angela. Apart from this, the consumer act 2015 favors all the buyers to get compensation in lieu of a seller and buyer relation. This act does not depend on the agreement between the buyer and the seller. The malpractices and unfair terms of a seller treat under this act and not as per the sales of goods act.

 

 

REFERENCES

Bakar, N. M. A., Yasin, N. M. and Razali, S. S., 2018. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (United Kingdom): Is it a Good Model in Protecting Banking Consumers from Unfair Terms in Islamic Banking Consumer Contracts in Malaysia?. Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat. 22. pp.21-31.

Bridge, M. G., 2017. ProPerty, title and debt in Sale of GoodS. Nat'l L. Sch. India Rev.. 29. p.21.

Devenney, J., 2019. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and related reforms: an epic disappointment?. In Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hamid, A. G., 2017. Determining Fundamental Breach in International Sale of Goods: Taming the Unruly Horse?. PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES. 25. pp.171-177.

Le, T. M., 2016. Measuring the Success of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG): A Case Study on Vietnam (Master's thesis).

Masum, A. and Aziz, H. H. H. A. A., 2018. Consumer Protection and the Bruneian Sale of Goods Act 1994: With Special Reference to Quality and Fitness of Goods.

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.

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.

 

[1] purposes?–section 32 (2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In International Trade and Carriage of Goods. Informa Law from Routledge. [pp. 43-54].

 

[2] Masum and Aziz. Consumer Protection and the Bruneian Sale of Goods Act 1994: With Special Reference to Quality and Fitness of Goods. [2018]

[3] Soyer and Tettenborn. 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. Informa Law from Routledge. [2016] pp. 43-54

[4] Bridge. ProPerty, title and debt in Sale of GoodS. Nat'l L. Sch. India Rev.. 29.  [2017] p.21

 

[5] Bakar, Yasin and Razali. 2018. Consumer Rights Act 2015 (United Kingdom): Is it a Good Model in Protecting Banking Consumers from Unfair Terms in Islamic Banking Consumer Contracts in Malaysia?. Jurnal Undang-undang dan Masyarakat. 22. pp.21-31.

 

[6] Devenney. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 and related reforms: an epic disappointment?. In Research Handbook on Remedies in Private Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. [2019]

 

[7] Hamid. Determining Fundamental Breach in International Sale of Goods: Taming the Unruly Horse?. PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES. 25.  [2017] pp.171-177.

 

[8] Le. Measuring the Success of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG): A Case Study on Vietnam (Master's thesis). [2016]

 

 

No Need To Pay Extra
  • Turnitin Report

    $10.00
  • Proofreading and Editing

    $9.00
    Per Page
  • Consultation with Expert

    $35.00
    Per Hour
  • Live Session 1-on-1

    $40.00
    Per 30 min.
  • Quality Check

    $25.00
  • Total

    Free

New Special Offer

Get 25% Off

best-assignment-experts-review

Call Back