Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
145 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
When must sales of goods be in writing?
|
When they are on credit, and fall under the Consumer Credit Act 1974) |
|
Are exchange of goods covered by SOGA79? |
No, at least a nominal value of money must be included |
|
SOGA79 Section 8 |
(Foley v Classique Coaches (1934)) |
|
Foley v Classique Coaches (1934) |
SOGA79 Section 8 If no price is implied, the buyer must pay a reasonable price |
|
SOGA79 Section 12(1) |
(Rowland v Divall (1923)) |
|
SOGA79 Section 27
|
There is a basic obligation to deliver the goods |
|
Rowland v Divall (1923) |
SOGA79 Section 12(1) It is implied that the seller has the right to sell the goods -After a few months it was discovered that a car was stolen. Rowland was entitled to a full refund |
|
SOGA79 Section 12(2)
|
(Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Making Ltd (1975)) (Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000)) |
|
Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Making Ltd (1975) |
SOGA79 Section 12(2) It is implied that the goods are free from any charge or encumbrance -Shortly after a sale, a third party obtained a patent preventing the buyer from using the goods. He was entitled to damages |
|
Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000)
|
SOGA79 Section 12(2) It is implied that the goods are free from any charge or encumbrance -Rubicon supplied computers, but installed an immobilising device, which they used during a dispute. United Paints were entitled to a refund |
|
SOGA79 Sections 13(3) and (5) |
The seller can only transfer such rights as he possesses |
|
SOGA79 Section 13(1) |
There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition (Harlingdon & Leinster Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1991)) (Beale v Taylor (1967)) (Re Moore and Co v Landauer and Co (1921)) (Arcos v Ronaason & Sons (1933)) |
|
Harlingdon & Leinster Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1991) |
SOGA79 Section 13(1) There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition -Buyers of a Munter painting were experts, so could not rely on SOGA79 when it turned out to be a fake |
|
Beale v Taylor (1967) |
SOGA79 Section 13(1) There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition -A car turned out to be two different models welded together. The buyer had relied on the advert, so could claim under SOGA79 |
|
Re Moore and Co v Landauer and Co (1921) |
SOGA79 Section 13(1) There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition -Tins of peaches were ordered in cases of 30 tins, but half was packed in cases of 24 tins. The buyer was entitled to reject the whole order |
|
Arcos v Ronaason & Sons (1933) |
SOGA79 Section 13(1) There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition -Some staves ordered 1/2 inch thick were delivered 9/16 inch. The buyer could reject the whole order |
|
SOGA79 Section 15A |
In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty (Peter Darlington and Partners v Gosho Ltd (1964)) (Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (1976)) |
|
Peter Darlington and Partners v Gosho Ltd (1964) |
SOGA79 Section 15A In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty -Seeds ordered pure were only 98% pure. The buyer could not reject the order |
|
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (1976) |
SOGA79 Section 15A In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty -A contract stated that a ship was to be built in 'yard 354'. It wasn't, but met all other requirements. The buyer couldn't reject it |
|
SOGA79 Section 14(2) |
There is an implied condition that goods are of satisfactory quality in the course of business (Stevenson v Rogers (1999)) |
|
SOGA79 Section 14(3) |
There is an implied condition that the goods are fit for purpose in the course of business |
|
Stevenson v Rogers (1999) |
SOGA79 Section 14(2) There is an implied condition that goods are of satisfactory quality in the course of business -A boat was not of satisfactory quality |
|
In private sales, who is responsible for the risk of satisfactory quality? |
The buyer |
|
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) |
More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality (Millars of Falkirk v Turpie (1976)) (Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)) (Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd (1965)) (Trac-Time Control Ltd v Moss Plastic Parts Ltd and others (2004)) (Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd (1988)) (Bramhill v Edwards (2004)) |
|
Millars of Falkirk v Turpie (1976) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -Faulty power steering was not enough to reject a car under the old Act |
|
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -An expensive car started to rust within six months. The buyer was entitled to reject it |
|
Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd (1965) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -A buyer was warned of a defective clutch, so couldn't reject the car on that basis |
|
Trac-Time Control Ltd v Moss Plastic Parts Ltd and others (2004) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -Plastic mouldings produced broken floodlights. The mouldings manufacturer was liable |
|
Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd (1988) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -A car was discovered to have previously been written off for water damage. The buyer could reject it |
|
Bramhill v Edwards (2004) |
SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B) More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality -A motor home was 2 inches wider than UK regulations. This was not sufficient for the buyer to reject it |
|
Sellers will not be liable for damage caused by mistreatment, eg... |
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co Ltd v Lupdine Ltd (1987) |
|
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co Ltd v Lupdine Ltd (1987) |
Sellers will not be liable for damage caused by mistreatment -Pails to store water were kept in bright sunshine and high temperatures, so split. The seller was not liable |
|
SOGA79 Section 14(2C) |
A buyer does not have to examine goods before buying, but will lose the right to complain if a seller points out the fault before purchase |
|
SOGA79 Section 14(3) |
There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known (Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)) (Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939)) (Slater v Finning Ltd (1996)) (Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1971)) (Jewson Ltd v Kelly (2003)) |
|
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) |
SOGA79 Section 14(3) There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known -Underpants caused dermatitis. The seller was liable, as the buyer had made it clear that they were to be worn against skin |
|
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939) |
SOGA79 Section 14(3) There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known -A coat caused dermatitis, but the buyer did not make it know that she suffered from very sensitive skin. The seller wasn't liable |
|
Slater v Finning Ltd (1996) |
SOGA79 Section 14(3) There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known -A camshaft was unsuitable for a certain boat. The seller was not liable |
|
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1971) |
SOGA79 Section 14(3) There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known -Food bought for minks poisoned them. The seller was liable, as the buyer had relied on their skill |
|
Jewson Ltd v Kelly (2003) |
SOGA79 Section 14(3) There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known -Boilers relied on peak time electricity, which the buyer could not afford. The seller was not liable |
|
SOGA79 Section 15 |
There is an implied condition that the bulk must correspond to the sample (Godley v Perry (1960)) |
|
Godley v Perry (1960) |
SOGA79 Section 15 There is an implied condition that the bulk must correspond to the sample -A catapult worked in a sample, but broke when actually sold. The seller was liable |
|
SOGA79 Section 15(A) |
In non-consumer sales, if the breach between sample and bulk us only slight, it may be regarded as a breach of warranty rather than condition |
|
SOGA79 Section 17 |
Ownership of specific goods passes when the parties intend |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 |
If no point is implied for the transfer of ownership, there are four rules for the transfer of specific goods, and one for unascertained goods |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1 |
If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made (Tarling v Baxter (1827)) (Dennant v Skinner and Collom (1948)) |
|
Tarling v Baxter (1827) |
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1 If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made -A haystack burnt down after the sale but before delivery. The buyer was liable |
|
Dennant v Skinner and Collom (1948) |
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1 If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made -A document signed after a sale that stated ownership would not transfer until a cheque cleared was too late to be valid |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 2 |
If the goods are not in a deliverable state, ownership passes when they have been put in such state, and the buyer has been informed |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 3 |
If the goods must be weighed or measured by the seller, ownership passes once this has been done and the seller informed |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 4 |
If goods are delivered 'on approval', ownership passes when the buyer approves the transaction, or after a reasonable time (Elphick v Barnes (1880)) |
|
Elphick v Barnes (1880) |
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 4 If goods are delivered 'on approval', ownership passes when the buyer approves the transaction, or after a reasonable time -A horse was sold on 'approval for eight days'. It died on the third day, so the seller was liable |
|
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5 |
Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated (Healy v Howlett (1917)) (Phillip Head and Sons v Showfronts Ltd (1970)) |
|
Healy v Howlett (1917) |
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5 Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated -A railway company was to allocate boxes of fish to various customers during delivery. The train was delayed and the fish went off. The seller was liable |
|
Phillip Head and Sons v Showfronts Ltd (1970) |
SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5 Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated -Carpets were stolen before fitting. The seller was liable, as the customer had ordered FITTED carpets |
|
SOGA79 Section 16 |
Ownership of unascertained goods will not pass until they have been ascertained |
|
SOGA79 Section 19 |
The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title (Aluminium Industrie Vaassen v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd (1976)) (Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd (1981)) (Pfeiffer W-W Gmb/h v Arbuthnot Factors (1988)) (Re: Peachdart Ltd (1983)) |
|
Aluminium Industrie Vaassen v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd (1976) |
SOGA79 Section 19 The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title -Foil was subject to a ROT clause, but was only applicable to unmixed foil |
|
Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd (1981) |
SOGA79 Section 19 The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title -Resin was subject to a ROT clause, but this was not valid once the resin had been used in chipboard |
|
Pfeiffer W-W Gmb/h v Arbuthnot Factors (1988) |
SOGA79 Section 19 The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title -An attempt to hold funds in trust as a charge on assets was rejected |
|
Re: Peachdart Ltd (1983) |
SOGA79 Section 19 The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title -A ROT clause on leather was not valid once it had been made into handbags |
|
SOGA79 Section 20(1) |
Risk passes with ownership (Tarling v Baxter (1827)) |
|
SOGA79 Section 20(2) |
If delivery has been delayed, risk lies with the party at fault (Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden (1949)) |
|
Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden (1949) |
SOGA79 Section 20(2) If delivery has been delayed, risk lies with the party at fault -A buyer delayed taking delivery of apple juice, so was liable when the juice deteriorated |
|
SOGA79 Section 20(4) |
In consumer sales, risk remains with the seller until delivery |
|
SOGA79 Sections 20(A) and (B) |
A buyer can't own shares of a bulk if the bulk is unidentified (Re Wait (1927)) |
|
Re Wait (1927) |
SOGA79 Sections 20(A) and (B) A buyer can't own shares of a bulk if the bulk is unidentified |
|
SOGA79 Section 6 |
Sellers are protected when specific goods have perished without their knowledge, as the contract will be void (Asfar & Co Ltd v Blundell (1896)) |
|
Asfar & Co Ltd v Blundell (1896) |
SOGA79 Section 6 Sellers are protected when specific goods have perished without their knowledge, as the contract will be void -Dates had sunk and when retrieved were a sodden pulp. The contract was void |
|
SOGA79 Section 7 |
If specific goods perish after a contract is made, but before delivery, the contract is frustrated |
|
SOGA79 Section 21
|
Only the owner of goods is able to sell them |
|
If the true owner of goods confirms in any way that the seller has a right to sell them, they will be estopped from later denying it, eg...
|
Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring (1957) |
|
Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring (1957)
|
SOGA79 Section 21 If the true owner of goods confirms in any way that the seller has a right to sell them, they will be estopped from later denying it -Murphy gave a dealer the registration to his van to part-exchange. The dealer sold it without getting the new car |
|
Estoppel does not apply to an agreement to sell if no money has passed hands, eg... |
Shaw v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (1987) |
|
Shaw v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (1987) |
SOGA79 Section 21 Estoppel does not apply to an agreement to sell if no money has passed hands -A rogue obtained a car registration and sold the car, but disappeared before being paid. The sale was not binding |
|
SOGA79 Section 21(2)
|
(Folkes v King (1923)) |
|
Folkes v King (1923)
|
SOGA79 Section 21(2) Sales by a mercantile agent are binding unless the buyer is aware of a lack of authority -An agent had authority to sell a car for a minimum price, but sold below this. The sale was binding |
|
SOGA79 Section 23
|
Goods obtained through a void contract can't be resold, but can be if it was a voidable contract that hasn't yet been put aside |
|
SOGA79 Section 24
|
If a seller re-sells goods to an innocent third party, the third party will take valid ownership on delivery |
|
SOGA79 Section 25
|
(Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams (1964)) ...but not if the goods were originally stolen (National Employers Mutual Insrance v Jones (1990)) |
|
Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams (1964)
|
SOGA79 Section 25 A buyer re-selling goods will be binding even if they were originally obtained by deception -A car bought with a worthless cheque was resold. The resale was valid |
|
National Employers Mutual Insrance v Jones (1990)
|
SOGA79 Section 25 Re-sale of goods will not be binding if they were stolen -A van was stolen and then sold on several times. The original owner sued for return of the van |
|
Sale of a vehicle subject to an existing hire purchase agreement will give a consumer good title, but not a business, eg...
|
GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Jenking (2005) |
|
GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Jenking (2005) |
Sale of a vehicle subject to an existing hire purchase agreement will give a consumer good title, but not a business -Rushton bought 13 cars subject to hire purchase, and sold one for private use to Jenking. Jenking gained ownership, but Rushton did not |
|
What does 'nemo dat quod non habet' mean?
|
No one can give that which he has not got |
|
SOGA79 Section 27
|
The seller is obliged to deliver the goods, and the buyer is obliged to pay for them |
|
SOGA79 Section 28 |
Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions |
|
SOGA79 Section 29(2) |
|
|
SOGA79 Section 32 |
Delivery to a carrier will suffice for the seller's obligation |
|
If a delivery time is agreed, time is assumed to be of the essence, eg...
|
Bowes v Shand (1877) |
|
Bowes v Shand (1877)
|
SOGA79 Section 29 If a delivery time is agreed, time is assumed to be of the essence -Rice was ordered for March. 7/8 was shipped in February, so the buyer was entitled to reject the order |
|
SOGA79 Section 29(3)
|
If no time is agreed, delivery must be within a reasonable time |
|
SOGA79 Section 37
|
If a buyer fails to take delivery within a reasonable time, he is liable for any loss |
|
SOGA79 Section 29 |
Delivery includes physical goods, keys and/or documents of title |
|
SOGA79 Section 8
|
If the price is not set, the buyer is obliged to pay a reasonable price |
|
SOGA79 Section 30 |
(Shipton Anderson & Co Ltd v Weil Bros & Co Ltd (1912)) |
|
Shipton Anderson & Co Ltd v Weil Bros & Co Ltd (1912) |
SOGA79 Section 30 The buyer may reject the entire delivery if the amount is more or less than agreed, but minute deviations won't apply -4,950 tons of wheat were order, but 4,950 tons and 55 pounds were delivered. The seller could not reject the order |
|
SOGA79 Section 31(1)
|
|
|
SOGA79 Section 31(2)
|
(Maple Flock Co Ltd v Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd (1934)) (Robert A Munro & Co Ltd v Meyer (1930)) |
|
Maple Flock Co Ltd v Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd (1934)
|
SOGA79 Section 31(2) If a contract is severable, the buyer may only be able to claim damages for missed delivery instalments, rather than repudiate the whole contract -100 tons of bricks were deliverable by instalment. The first 15 deliveries were acceptable, as were 17-20th, but the 16th was not. The buyer could not repudiate the contract |
|
Robert A Munro & Co Ltd v Meyer (1930)
|
SOGA79 Section 31(2) If a contract is severable, the buyer may only be able to claim damages for missed delivery instalments, rather than repudiate the whole contract -1500 tons of bone and meal were ordered, but the first 651 tons contained cocoa husk. The buyer could repudiate the contract |
|
SOGA79 Section 35(1)(b)
|
Acceptance occurs if the buyer does anything with the goods inconsistent with ownership of the seller, or after a reasonable time (Clegg v Ollie Andersson (2003)) |
|
SOGA79 Section 36 |
The buyer has no duty to return rejected goods
|
|
SOGA79 Section 35(3) |
Any agreement to prevent the right to examine goods is void |
|
SOGA79 Section 35(6) |
Acceptance is not made when a buyer asks for a repair to the goods (J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (2007)) |
|
Clegg v Ollie Andersson (2003) |
SOGA79 Section 35 Acceptance occurs if the buyer does anything with the goods inconsistent with ownership of the seller, or after a reasonable time - A boat keel was overweight, and it took the buyer three weeks to reject it. This was not unreasonable |
|
J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (2007) |
SOGA79 Section 35(6) Acceptance is not made when a buyer asks for a repair to the goods -A drill was faulty on delivery and returned for repair. When repaired, the buyer was still concerned and rejected it. He was entitled to do so |
|
SOGA79 Section 49 |
In the event of non-payment, the seller can sue for the contract price (Colley v Overseas Exporters Ltd (1921)) |
|
Colley v Overseas Exporters Ltd (1921) |
SOGA79 Section 49 In the event of non-payment, the seller can sue for the contract price -Goods were sold FOB, but because no ship was ascertained, so title didn't pass and the seller could not sue for price |
|
SOGA79 Section 50 |
If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance (calculated on the market price) (WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd (1955)) (Charter v Sullivan (1957)) |
|
WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd (1955) |
SOGA79 Section 50 If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance -A car was wrongly rejected, so the seller could claim the contract price (there was no market) |
|
Charter v Sullivan (1957) |
SOGA79 Section 50 If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance -A car was wrongly rejected, but the seller could only claim nominal damages because there was plenty of demand elsewhere |
|
SOGA79 Section 41 |
Lien is the seller's right to withhold delivery as long as they still have possession |
|
SOGA79 Section 44 |
Stoppage in transit is only available if the buyer becomes insolvent |
|
SOGA79 Section 48 |
The seller has a right to resell if the goods are perishable, or if notice is given when a buyer fails to pay within a reasonable time |
|
SOGA79 Sections 51-53 |
A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition (Jones v Gallagher and Gallagher (2005)) (Lee v York Coach and Marine Ltd (1977)) (Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)) |
|
Jones v Gallagher and Gallagher (2005) |
SOGA79 Sections 51-53 A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition -The right to reject a kitchen was lost because they waited until work was complete |
|
Lee v York Coach and Marine Ltd (1977) |
SOGA79 Sections 51-53 A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition -Brakes on a second-hand car were discovered to be faulty in March, but only gave notice in September so lost the right to reject |
|
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)) |
SOGA79 Sections 51-53 A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition -An expensive car started to rust within six months. The buyer was entitled to reject it |
|
SOGA79 Section 52 |
Specific performance is only usually available if the goods are unique (Cohen v Roche (1927)) |
|
Cohen v Roche (1927) |
SOGA79 Section 52 Specific performance is only usually available if the goods are unique -The seller failed to deliver Hepplewhite furniture. It was rare, but not unique, so specific performance was not granted |
|
SOGASA82 Section 2
|
There is an implied condition that the transferor has the right to sell the goods, and the implied warranties that there are no third party rights and that the transferee will enjoy quiet possession |
|
SOGASA82 Section 3
|
There is an implied condition that the goods will match the description |
|
SOGASA82 Section 4 |
There is an implied condition that the goods are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose |
|
SOGASA82 Section 5
|
The is an implied condition that the bulk will correspond to the sample |
|
SOGASA82 Section 7
|
There is an implied condition that the bailor is entitled to transfer possession (hire), and an implied warranty that the hiree has the right to quiet possession. This section can be excluded if reasonable |
|
SOGASA82 Section 8
|
The is an implied condition that hire goods will match the description |
|
SOGASA82 Section 9 |
There are implied conditions that hired goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose |
|
SOGASA82 Section 10
|
There is an implied condition that the bulk of hired goods will correspond to the sample |
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 |
(Wilson v Best Travel Ltd (1993)) (Midland Bank Trust Co v Hett Stubbs and Co (1979)) (Kimber v William Willet Ltd (1947)) (Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Beaverstock (1990)) (Thake v Maurice (1986)) |
|
Wilson v Best Travel Ltd (1993)
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care -On holiday in Greece, Wilson fell through a glass door. The door met Greek standards, so the tour operator was not liable |
|
Midland Bank Trust Co v Hett Stubbs and Co (1979)
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care -Solicitors failed to register an option to purchase. They were liable |
|
Kimber v William Willet Ltd (1947)
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care -A fitted carpet was left in a dangerous condition. The fitters were liable |
|
Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Beaverstock (1990)
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care -Auctioneers didn't realise the value of expensive paintings, and sold them cheaply. They were not liable |
|
Thake v Maurice (1986)
|
SOGASA82 Section 13 There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care -A surgeon could not be held liable for an unsuccessful operation |
|
SOGASA82 Section 814
|
(Charnock v Liverpool Corporation (1968)) |
|
Charnock v Liverpool Corporation (1968)
|
SOGASA82 Section 814 There is an implied innominate terms that performance of a business service should take place within a reasonable time -A car repair that should have taken five weeks actually took eight. The garage was liable |
|
SOGASA82 Section 15
|
(Croshaw v Pritchard and Renwick (1899)) |
|
Croshaw v Pritchard and Renwick (1899)
|
SOGASA82 Section 15 There is an implied innominate term that the price of a service will be reasonable (if not specified). A quote is binding, but an estimate is not |
|
SOGASA82 Section 16
|
Liability for SOGASA82 Sections 13-15 can be excluded or limited subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 |
|
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Sections 6 and 7
|
A consumer contract can't exclude/limit liability for SOGA79 Sections 13-15, but a business contract can if reasonable |
|
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 |
Unfair terms in unnegotiable consumer contracts will be void |
|
Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
|
This mirrors SOGA79, but relates to hire purchase contracts
|
|
Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 |
He can't claim for wear and tear or accidental damage He is entitled to a full refund within a reasonable time, or reasonable compensation within six years If goods are returned within six months, it is the retailers responsibility to prove quality |
|
The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 |
Enforces penalties for aggressive selling or untruthful claims, without the need to prove that anyone has been deceived |
|
The Consumer Rights Directive 2011 |
Aims to ensure clarity of information on purchases, and restrict unfair charges/fees |