Martin saw the following description of binoculars in a high street shop:

"Giant 25x100 binoculars, good quality, suitable for all general uses. 99."

Martin, who is interested in the night sky, knew that this was very cheap for such a pair of binoculars.He expected that one would normally have to pay about 200 for such a pair.He looked through some sample binoculars during the day time and asked the seller if he could use them for looking at the night sky.The teenage sales assistant said "I guess so" and Martin bought a pair.

Martin also saw the following description of a laptop in the same shop:

"Tinsui laptop.17" screen ... a 1TB hard disk and a six hour battery."

Martin spent some time looking at one of the laptops quite thoroughly, after which he decided to buy one and paid the money.

When Martin was at home he found that the binoculars were a bit dented and scratched, although not on the actual lenses. Also, when he took the binoculars outside to use on the night sky, he found that the lenses misted up on the inside, as they were not sealed to keep the damp out.

He then went inside and opened the box to power up the new laptop.Sadly, he found that the laptop did not have the stated 1TB hard disk, rather it only has a 250 GB hard disk.Moreover, he has found that the battery only lasts three hours not the stated six hours.

Martin was not happy, especially as he was due to go on holiday in two weeks time and wanted to take the binoculars with him. He then went down with a bad back for nearly two weeks, following which he was away on holiday, which delayed him taking the items back to the shop until 5 weeks after he had bought them.

The shop has refused to provide a refund or any other remedy, saying that:

(a) In the case of the binoculars, it must be his fault, for using them outside in the damp as the binoculars were not made for that purpose; and

(b) In the case of the laptop, he had inspected the computer in store and had switched it on and used it.

(c)In any case, it was too late for any action to be taken.

Consider if there has been a breach of the implied terms of description, quality or fitness under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), and any remedies that Martin mayhave.

For advising Martin you should use relevant cases in order to support your advise. As you are aware, we use always the legal principle of the cases and you will apply to our scenario. I have listed a wide range of cases to the Topic Overviews.

Structure your answer logically, dealing with each party in turn. First, From the cse study mentioned it is inevitbly noted tht Mrtin hs been victim of frud nd wrong representtion of goods. Mrtin hs different options with himself for his remedies. This pper dels with the most pproprite remedies for Mrtin. We will be discssing the sles of goods ct tht is implied to the cse provided. The terms implied into most sles of goods contrcts re found in sections 12-15 of the 1979 Act.

Do not forget to compare the remedies under each head of liability and reached a balanced, well-argued conclusion.