Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

Ryan ordered 10 bags of rice from Thailand from Mr Roy. When Mr Roy delivered the bags of rice, Ryan found that only 5 bags

image text in transcribedimage text in transcribedimage text in transcribedimage text in transcribed
Ryan ordered 10 bags of rice from Thailand from Mr Roy. When Mr Roy delivered the bags of rice, Ryan found that only 5 bags of rice were imported from Thailand while the rest were imported from China. Ryan is not satisfied with the goods delivered. In addition, after Ryan consumed the rice imported from Thailand, he suffered from diarrhea and vomiting. He went to the hospital to get medical treatment and upon investigation by the medical staff where Ryan received the treatment, it was confirmed that he suffered from food poisoning and that the rice imported from Thailand was contaminated. (20 marks) With reference to the Sale of Goods Act 1957, advise Ryan. (ILAC PRINCIPLE)l} The first issue is whether Mr. Roy Liable for breaching the implied condition that stated in sales of good contract act 1951'. 2} is whether Ryan can take a legal action against Mr. Roy related to the poisoning food? RELATED LAW: Condition & Cases Section 12 (2) the sales of good aet195'l' state, a condition is an essential part of the main purpose of the contract, the breach of the condition will give right to the innocent person to repudiate the contract. C ases: The pertinent details: A manufacture based located in German has entered intro a distributorship agreement with an English sales company. Apart from that, one clause stated that about a \"condition" which the sale company shall send representative to six listed rm once per week. However, due to the failure in complying the condition, t the German company has terminated its agreement which led to the breaching of condition held by the court (Teacher, Law. (November 2013) Condition to be treated as warranty (Exception for the General rnle) Under Section 13 (2) of the sales of goods act 195']r states, when a contract of sale is not severahle and the buyer has accepted or use the part of the goods. The breach of condition can only be treated as a breach of warranty, unless there is a term that been express or implied in the contract Implied condition as to qnnlity or tness Under section 16(1) the sales of goods act 1951' states, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or tness for any particular purpose of the good supplied under a contract of sales. Apart from that, the common rule \"lets the buyer be aware" or known as Caveat Emptor rule are also referrable under this section. APPLICATION: Based on the case, Ryan was known as a buyer and Mr. Roy was the seller. The pertinent details: Ryan ordered ll]I bags of rice with Mr. Roy which require the rice must be from Thailand. However, when Ryan received a full amount of the goods, only 5 were from Thailand and the remaining are from China. Therefore, it can be said that, Mr. Roy has breached the condition under Section 12 (2) the Sales of Goods Act 195?, which can lead the contract to he repudiated However, based on the Section 13 (2) the Sales of Goods Act 1957, a condition can turn into a warranty if the buyer has accepted or use a part of the goods and the contract of sale not too severable. Since Ryan has accepted the goods and have consumed the rice that been imported from Thailand. Therefore, it can be said that Ryan unable to treat the contract as a breaching of condition but only a breaching of warranty. Next, Section 16 (1) the Sales ofGoods Act 1957 indicate that a buyer should \"be aware". This, require the buyer to use his own judgement when decided to purchase a goods and the consequences. Conversely, in the case of Ryan which, after he consumed the rice and get poisoned, Mr. Roy can be said was no liable because the caveat emptor rule is applied. CONCLUSION: As the conclusion, Ryan can only claim for damages due to a breach of warranty with Mr. Roy. However, talking about the second issue which the \"Food Poisoning", Mr. Roy are not liable upon that matter since there is the Caveat Emptor Rule which require Ryan to be aware with the consequences. References: Teacher, Law. (November 2013). Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/schuler-ag-v-wickman-machine.php?vref=1

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Fundamentals Of Lawyer Leadership

Authors: Leah W. Teague, Elizabeth M. Fraley, Stephen L. Rispoli

1st Edition

1543825257, 978-1543825251

More Books

Students also viewed these Law questions

Question

1. To gain knowledge about the way information is stored in memory.

Answered: 1 week ago