uber什么意思Ca 1
Q1：Maggie 没受伤，她是否有权利起诉SELLER；商品是in a sale，是否影响MAGGIE的权利？
津桥（买方和卖方的关系）
A1：1，Yes, she can do that.
2，The basic law is the ller violation the Implied Terms of SOGA 1979. It is include four terms.
a)Section 12 SOGA 1979 Implied Terms of Title
b)Section 13 SOGA 1979 Sale by Description
janet renoc)Section 14 SOGA 1979 Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable
Fitness for Purpo.
d)Section 15 SOGA 1979 Sale by Sample
This ca was violation Section 14 SOGA 1979.Section 14 implied two terms: Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for the Purpo. The major violation of this ca is Satisfactory Quality.
疯狂跳棋
⑴The standard of Section 14 of SOGA 1979 is “that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant)and all other relevant circumstances”.
马卢达是什么意思⑵There are factors that are listed in Section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cas:
☉Fitness for the purpo for which goods of the kind in
question are commonly supplied.
☉Appearance and finish
☉Freedom from minor defects
☉Safety and
☉Durability
⑶In this ca, the tumble dryer is lack of safety and durability. Maggie just bought it two months, so i
t still a new tumble dryer. It was caught fire. Clearly, it is lack of durability. The tumble is a latent defect in the wiring that lead to detonate. So we said it is lack of safety.
3,Maggie bought the tumble dryer in a sale, but it does not diminish the buyer’s rights unless they are clasd as “conds” etc or a particular defect is brought to the attention of the buyer as being the reason for the reduction in price. Maggie did not know the bug of the tumble dryer before she buy it. So Maggie’ s rights should not be diminished.
4,◎The cited ca is Thomson v J Sears ＆Co(1926), the pursuer purchad boots for himlf and suffered periostosis of the foot as a result of the insole having crumpled up and become knotted and nodular. It should be obvious that the boots were going to be worn as footwear.
◎In the ca of Priest V Last(1903),a buyer was scalded after using a hot water bottle and was successful in suing the ller on
the basis that the bottle was unfit for the purpo.
Strict liability also applies and it is no defence that the ller has done all that is reasonable to avoid breach of the provision.(nao)
google词典
◎In the ca of Frost V Aylesbury Dairy CO ltd(1905),where the plaintiff’s wife died from consuming milk containing germs of typhoid fever and the dairy could not defend the action on the basis that they could not reasonably have discovered the prence of the virus in the milk.(pao)
Q2:Charlie受伤，MAGGIE该怎么办？（the injury of Charlie）
A2:1, Charlie can not impaled the ller. Becau that he is not the buyer.
早道Charlie no contractual relationship with the ller. The provisions of SOGA 1979 only apply to the buyer, not to any other people or party. He has no claim against the ller under the Act.
2,There is a ca that Donoghue V Sterenson 1932,Mrs Donoghue drunk some of mixture and her friend then lifted the bottle and was pouring out the remainder into a tumbler when a decompod snail floated out of he bottle and into her drink. Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and illness as a result. She claimed damages against the manufacturer. The Hou of Lords ruled that the manufacturer would have to pay Mrs Donoghue damages as he owed a duty of care to anyone using his product. He had failed in that duty of care.agenda是什么意思
3,Accroding to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that the ller has
to return both the purcha price and compensate for any damage.
The buyer does not have to prove negligence on the part of the ller. To the dangerous products causing damages or injury, manufacturer should assume the strict liability. Just presume fault of manufacturer.
4In this ca, Charlie should according to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to implead. The process should not prove the fault of manufacturer, just mention Charlie was injury.
Q3:Seller说是厂商的责任，零售商是否可以就此免责。
A3：1,No, they can not exclude liability.
2,According to the Strict Liability in SOGA 1979 that the buyer should prove it is a faulty good, but the buyer should not prove negligence. The ller could damage to the buyer and then demand compensation to the manufacturer.
3,Maggie can get all of the compensation, include personal injury and goods damage. But she can not demand compensation about injury of Charlie. Becau that Charlie is not the buyer.
Q4：在告示之后的损失，免责条款是否生效？（there is a notice to exclusion clau）
A4:1,The ller will fail. They can not exclusion clau.
2,♀According to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.定义（you will recall from your previous study of the law of contract that for an exclusion clau, weather valid or not, to be considered as part of thee contract it must be :“incorporated” or form part of the contract. Consumer contracts for the supply of goods and rvices are covered by the Act, as well as contracts of employment and apprenticeship.）.
yank
♀In Section 16 of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977,we can known that‘ any attempt to exclude liability for death or personal injury arising from breach of any of the above duties is void’
♀Section 20 UCTA 1977,covers attempts to exclude or restrict liability in relation to implied terms in SOGA 1979. As previously discusd, any such claus are void in a consumer contract. The notice can not exclude the implied terms.you lie
♀The controls impod by the Act are more stringent on consumer contracts than on business to business contracts. The strongest possible protection consumer.
3,Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Under the Regulations, a consumer can
t aside a contract for goods or rvices by showing that the contract is unfair. The Regulations apply to any term in a contract between a ller or supplier and a consumer where the term has not been individually negotiated.
