Holmes JAin Phame v Paizes 1973 (3) 397 (A) at 421 stated the following,regardingthe quality of incorporeal things:

"The next question is whether the representation as pleaded is incapable of being read as bearing upon the qualityofthe shares. Nowqualityisaword with a fairly wide connotation.To preserve the mercantile usefulness of the Aedilitianremedies,I donotconsider thatthewordshould be given arestrictedmeaning. When one speaks ofcompany shares of good quality, a relevant consideration is the percentage return after deducting expenses from income. If one speaks of buying "9 per cent shares", I consider that that can be said to relate to their quality".

In the light of the above statement,

(a) discuss the application of the Aedilitianremedies in the law ofsale to intangible and tangible things; ((5 marks)) and consider the action/remedy in the following circumstances:

(b) where the seller is an artifex, manufacturer or seller, or is a dealer professing attributes of skill and expert knowledge in relation to the thing; (4 marks)

(c) where the seller sold the thing with the price to be paid partly in money and partly in an kind (object), such as a trade in car; (4 marks)

(d) where the seller as acted fraudulently, or mala fide; (4 marks)

(e) Where the seller has given an express or implied warranty against the existence of the defect, or has warranted the fitness of the res vendita (the thing sold) for the purpose for which it is bought. (4 marks)