This project deals with the sale of goods in a business to consumer contract and the consumers here are defined as people who are buying products for purposes not related to their trade, business or profession. The legislation for sale of goods was originally passed in 1893 and before that they were regulated under the common law. Then in 1979, the Sale of Good Act was introduced to codify both the both the 1893 Act and amendments made to it prior to 1979. The contracts for sale of goods are now governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SoGA 1979) and it is a key UK consumer law setting out the rules that sellers must abide by when selling products.
When a contract is made between both the parties, a number of terms are included in it, which …show more content…
However, this does not carry an implication that the seller is necessarily the owner of the goods, and thus it is important to distinguish between the right to sell and the power to sell. In Niblett v Confectioners’ Materials Co. Ltd, the sellers were liable for breach of s.12 (1), as they did not have the legal rights to sell the goods in the United Kingdom. However, this section is clearly broken if the goods belong to a third party and the seller has no power to transfer the property to the buyer at that relevant time. It neither requires knowledge or fault on the part of the seller nor any absence of the right to sell. Therefore, the interference must be one that ‘stops or prevents the sale’ and the seller will not lack the right to sell the goods merely because a third party has a right to interfere with possession. On the other hand, a buyer can bring an action against the seller if the original owner still owns the goods at the time the buyer bought it from the seller. In Rowand v Divall, there was a total failure of consideration and the buyer was allowed to recover the full purchase price, even though he may have enjoyed use of the goods for a considerable period. A similar situation was also seen in Butterworth v Kingsway Motors Ltd. Therefore, s.12 makes clear that in the case of a contract of sale, where the property passes at the time of the contract, the seller must have the right to sell at that time. In addition, where the sale is valid and the seller has some title of ownership, then the buyer will obtain the title for the same
When a contract is made between both the parties, a number of terms are included in it, which …show more content…
However, this does not carry an implication that the seller is necessarily the owner of the goods, and thus it is important to distinguish between the right to sell and the power to sell. In Niblett v Confectioners’ Materials Co. Ltd, the sellers were liable for breach of s.12 (1), as they did not have the legal rights to sell the goods in the United Kingdom. However, this section is clearly broken if the goods belong to a third party and the seller has no power to transfer the property to the buyer at that relevant time. It neither requires knowledge or fault on the part of the seller nor any absence of the right to sell. Therefore, the interference must be one that ‘stops or prevents the sale’ and the seller will not lack the right to sell the goods merely because a third party has a right to interfere with possession. On the other hand, a buyer can bring an action against the seller if the original owner still owns the goods at the time the buyer bought it from the seller. In Rowand v Divall, there was a total failure of consideration and the buyer was allowed to recover the full purchase price, even though he may have enjoyed use of the goods for a considerable period. A similar situation was also seen in Butterworth v Kingsway Motors Ltd. Therefore, s.12 makes clear that in the case of a contract of sale, where the property passes at the time of the contract, the seller must have the right to sell at that time. In addition, where the sale is valid and the seller has some title of ownership, then the buyer will obtain the title for the same