CASE 1:
Q1: I s Maggie entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning for lling her a defective tumble dryer and will it matter that she purchad the goods in a sale?
1.Y es, Maggie is entitled to bring a legal action against Thunderbolt & Lightning for lling her
a defective tumble dryer in terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).
2.Thunderbolt & Lightning will be in breach of Section 14 of the 1979 Act. The store has
broken one of the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (Sections 12-15) which are always assumed to form part of every contract of sale.
3.Section 14 also states that goods will be of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a
reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. Section 14 lists five examples of quality that buyers can u to help them decide whether the goods that they have purchad fall below the expected standard of quality:
∙fitness for all the purpos for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied
∙appearance and finish
∙freedom from minor defects
∙safety
∙durability
The tumble dryer is not fit for its purpo, it is unsafe and it is not durable. The protection w hich Section 14 gives to buyers is only applicable in situations where the ller is lling the goods in the cour of business. Maggie, of cour, has purchad the goods from a business ller.
4.Will it make a difference that Maggie purchad the goods in a sale? No. The only exceptions
关于蚂蚁的资料
will be when detects were specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention by the ller.
Furthermore, if the buyer examined the goods before purchasing them and noticed any obvious defects, she/he will not have the protection of Section l4.
5.More generally, the buyer’s claim that goods were not of satisfactory quality will be defeated
if the goods have been subject to wear and tear, the buyer has misud the goods or the buyer now has simply taken a dislike to the goods.
6.Section 48A(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 now states that there will be a strong
presumption operating against the ller that if the goods develop defects within six months from the date of delivery to the buyer. Then they will probably have failed to meet the requirement of satisfactory quality.
7.Candidates must be able to cite at least one of the following:
∙Jackson v Rotax Motor and Cycle Co [1910]
∙Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936]
∙Mash and Murrell v Joph I Emmanuel [196/], [1962]
∙Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965]
∙BS Brown & Son Ltd v Craiks Ltd[1970]
∙Millars of Falkirk v Turpie [1976]
Q2: What legal action, if any, can Charlie pursue as a result of the injuries that he has
suffered?
1.Charlie will not be entitled to bring an action under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act l979,
becau he does not have a contractual relationship with Thunderbolt & Lightning.
2.Charlie is in a much stronger legal position thanks to Part I of the Consumer Protection Act
l987 which allows him to pursue a civil claim for damages against the manufacturer of the tumble dryer in respect of his injuries. Part l of the Consumer Protection Act establishes a regime of strict liability in relation to defective products which cau damage to other property and/or injuries to people who were injured as a result of using the product or who came into clo contact with the product. Strict liability automatically presumes that the defect in the product must be the fault of the producer of the goods. The manufacturer must come up with a credible explanation to show why she/he is not to blame for the injuries or loss that the pursuer (Charlie) has suffered.
3.The 1987 Act applies to dangerous products which are capable of causing damage to the
西红柿炒年糕pursuer’s property or capable of causing the pursuer to suffer some sort of personal injury.
The fact that the product is not working properly will not give a pursuer the right to rai an action against the defender. Many products are defective without being dangerous in any way.
Q3: Do you think that Thunderbolt & Lightning will be able to escape liability to Maggie by claiming that the manufacturer was responsible for the defects in the goods?
1.No. Thunderbolt & Lightning’s attempt to escape liability to Maggie by claiming that the
manufacturer was responsible for the defects in the goods will fall foul of the concept of strict liability in the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
2.The buyer’s contract is with the ller and it is irrelevant to the buyer whether the defect has
been caud by a manufacturing fau lt or not. The ller’s liability is said to be strict in the n that the buyer does not have to prove fault or blame on the ller’s part.
3.A ller can in turn sue the manufacturer for supplying it with defective goods if the buyer has
successfully sued him/her for defects in the goods. The buyer may have suffered a personal injury or his/her property may have been damaged as a result of using the defective goods.
The ller will have to compensate the buyer for any injuries suffered or any damage caud as a result of using the goods. So, compensation could be awarded for the destruction caud to Maggie’s kitchen and clothing in the appliance at the time of fire.
4.Manufacturing guarantees may also give an indication as to the length of time that a buyer can
expect the goods to meet the appropriate standard of quality. This might be a strong indication of a major defect. Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act l979 states that manufacturing guarantees are directly enforceable against the manufacturer and any person (Thunderbolt & Lightning) who us a guarantee to ll or market the goods to a consumer.
Q4: Do you think that Thunderbolt & Lightning will be able to rely on the above exclusion clau to escape any potential liability to Maggie?
1.Thunderbolt & L ightning’s attempt to rely on the exclusion clau to escape any potential
liability to Maggie will fail mirably.
2.Such an exclusion clau is null and void becau the store is attempting to exclude its
liability for personal injuries which it simply cannot do.
3.Any attempt by the store to exclude or limit its liability in relation to Section 14 of the Sale of
12星座英文Goods Act 1979 will be automatically void in terms of Section 20 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
4.Furthermore, there is a general provision in Section 16 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
which renders null and void any attempt by an individual to exclude his/her liability for death or personal injuries.
5.Maggie is a consumer buying goods for her own private purpos and the strongest possible
protection is extended to consumers in terms of 1977 Act.
6.Additionally, the store’s exclusion clau could be challenged under the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. The Regulations apply a test of fairness before exclusion or
limitation clau can be regarded as void and unenforceable. With regard to the issue of excluding or limiting liability for death or personal injury, the Regulations state that such terms may be unfair whereas the Act makes the automatically void.
Q5: Presum ing that Maggie’s legal action is successful, what remedies will she be entitled to claim against Thunderbolt & Lightning?
1.If Maggie’s legal action is successful, she will be entitled to claim the remedies of rescission
< cancellation of the contract of sale for material breach (supplying goods of unsatisfactory
quality) and damages as per Section 15B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
2.There are various remedies:
∙rescission
∙reduction in the price of the good
∙replacement of the goods
∙repair the goods
Ca 2
Q1: What Act of Parliament covers consumer credit and how would you define a consumer credit agreement?
1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) regulates the consumer credit industry.
2.Section 8 of the l974 Act lays down a definition of a regulated consumer credit agreement.
Such an agreement is a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000. A corporate body (company, a limited partnership or a limited liability partnership) cannot be a party to a consumer credit agreement.
Q2: By reference to Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act l974, describe the legal relationship between Marvellous Motors PLC and Alba Bank.
1.Marvellous Motors PLC has a debtor-creditor-supplier arrangement with the Alba Bank.
Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements where the creditor and the supplier of goods may be the same person or where the supplier has links to a creditor who will provide credit to the supplier’s customers (the debtors). The supplier (Marvellous Motors PLC) in a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is the agent of the finance hou or the bank. This kind of arrangement benefits all three parties. The debtor is given access to a source of credit; the supplier can be confident of lling more goods becau she/he is in a position to offer credit to potential customers and the finance hou/bank gets someone el (the supplier) to drum up大学个人学习计划
custom on its behalf Debtor-creditor·-supplier agreements.
2.Section 75 of the Act allows a debtor to sue either the creditor or the supplier in the above
arrangement for a breach of contract committed by the supplier (Marvellous Motors PLC).
Section 75 makes the creditor and supplier jointly and verally liable to the debtor for any misreprentations or breaches of contract committed by the supplier.
清明节介绍Q3: What is the difference between a credit sale and a hire purcha agreement?
1.In credit sales, the debtor will become the owner of the goods from the outt of the
agreement. All the debtor has to do is make regular repayments of the debt owed to the creditor over the agreed credit period.
2.In hire purcha sales, the debtor will not become the owner of goods until he has paid the
creditor all the instalments owed under the agreement. The debtor will be given an option to purcha the goods. Hire purcha can never involve the purcha of land.
Q4: in what circumstances do debtors have the right to cancel a consumer credit agreement?
1.Section 67 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does allow a credit agreement to be cancelled in
certain situations. Credit agreements can only be cancelled if two conditions are met: ∙if you, the debtor, entered into face to face discussions with the creditor or the creditor’s agents with the aim of entering a credit agreement; and
∙the signing of the credit agreem ent by both parties did not take place on the creditor’s business premis
If a debtor signed a credit agreement in his/her own home after discussions with the creditor’s agent,
the debtor can take advantage of a cooling-off period. This period gives the debtor time to decide whether he wishes to cancel the agreement or not.
Q5: What is the purpo of consumer credit licens and will a business which applies for a licen automatically be granted one?
1.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 established a licensing system which covers all activities豆腐脑卤汁
relating to the provision of credit. Business or individuals wishing to provide credit facilities to members of the public must be in posssion of a licence issued by the Office of Fair Trading. Failure to obtain a licence means a business or an individual providing credit could face both civil and criminal penalties. An unlicend creditor may find they are unable to enforce the agreement against the debtor.
2.Licences are not just issued to anyone.
a.If you have previously broken the rules in the Consumer Credit Act 1974, you will
probably not be issued with a licence.
b.Criminal convictions for violence and dishonesty are likely to result in the applicant
野生动植物
being refud a licence.
c.All licence holders must ensure that they conduct their business properly. Any
undesirable conduct on their part could mean that the Office of Fair Trading may
年俗文化
decide to suspend or, even more riously, withdraw the licence.
Ca 3
Q1: By re-labelling the bottles of Bulgarian chardonnay as champagne, what criminal offence is Wullie committing and which Act of Parliament will he be in breach of as a result of his activities?
1.Wullie will have committed the criminal offence of making a materially fal and
misleading trade description as regards the origin of goods.
2.He will be in breach of:
a.Section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 for making a fal and materially
misleading trade description in relation to goods
b.Section 2 of the Act gives definitions of various fal and materially misleading
trade descriptions and
c.Section 3 explains what is meant by the word "fal" in relation to a trade
description.
Q2: What defences are available to someone in Wullie’s position?
1. Section 24 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 provides the main defence to an accud in Wullie’s position:
∙that the commission of the offence was due to a mistake, or due to reliance on information supplied to him, or to the act or default of another person, or to an accident, or due to some other cau beyond his control; and
∙that he took all reasonable precautions and exercid all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himlf for any person under his control
Wullie is not to be successful in any attempt to defend his actions given the deliberate nature of his crime.
2．Candidates should be able to cite at least one of the following examples:
●Robertson v Dicicco [1972]
●Fletcher v Budgen [ I 974 ]
●Regina v Ford Motor Co [IQ74]
●Ford v Guild []990]
●Costello v Lowe [7990]
