After discussing all the remedies available, I will then evaluate the adequacy of the law relating to these remedies through case examples and decide whether this law can be considered satisfactory. The remedies that a consumer can have, in Scotland, for defective good are outlined in section 15B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This section states that if the seller is in breach of the contract of sale then the buyer’s remedies will be an entitlement “to claim damages and if the breach is material, to reject any goods delivered under the contract and treat it as repudiated. This means that the buyer can claim compensation for any damage or loss that may have been incurred by the breach of the seller. Also, if the breach is material, meaning there was an express breach of the contract or any implied breach breach under ss. 13 – 14 of the act, then the goods can be rejected and the contract can be repudiated, meaning there is a denial of the existence of any contract the consumer will not perform their previous contractual obligation. S. 15B (2) also says that when ‘a contract of sale is a consumer contract’ then any term breached, express or implied, will be seen as material.
As long as the express or implied term that has been breached relates to the fitness for purpose or the quality of goods, the goods consistency with their description and if a sample has been given, the goods consistency with the quality of that sample. Section 13 – 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 outline the implied terms that cause the breach of the contract to be material. Section 13 outlines ‘Sale by Description’ , which means goods will correspond with their description. Section 14 utlines ‘implied terms about quality or fitness’, which says ‘Except as provided by this section and section 15 below … there is no implied about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale. ’ but in if goods are sold ‘in the course of a business’ then there is an implied term that goods have to be of ‘satisfactory quality’. If any of these implied terms are breached then there is a material breach. There are also further remedies in S. 48 and S. 5 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as long as there has still been a breach of an express or implied term and the breach occurs on the date of delivery. These further remedies include ‘repair or replacement of the goods’, ‘reduction of purchase price or rescission of contract’ and ‘right of partial rejection’. S. 48B says that a special remedy for the buyer can be requesting a repair or replacement from the seller if there is a breach of the contract, the seller must replace or repair in a reasonable time period, not inconveniencing the buyer and any costs involved must be covered by the seller.
The Term Paper on Breach of Contract and Remedies
... binding. Both express and implied terms would be included to create a set of promises and remedies stated if there occurred a breach of contract. ... Small Claim courts are to claim from failure for supplying goods and services that does not exceed or go above £5,000. ... all of the legislation acts such as the Sales of Goods Act, Contract (right of Third Parties) Act or The Consumer Protection ...
The buyer cannot require a replacement or repair if it is impossible or if it is more costly or inconvenient than another remedy. S. 48C says that the buyer can ‘require the seller to reduce the purchase price of the goods in question to the buyer by an appropriate amount, or rescind the contract with regard to those goods’ only if the previous remedies are unavailable. So, the buyer can receive an appropriate discount on their purchase price or if they rescind the contract and receive reimbursement for the goods, although the court may reduce this amount to account for use of the goods by the buyer.
S. 48E may work together with s. 48C as it gives the courts the power to order payment of damages or of the initial price, or to allow the buyer to rescind the contract. For any of these remedies from s. 48 to be brought into action the breach must occur at the date of delivery. Also, goods that breach the contract of sale within the 6-month period after the date of delivery are seen to have been in breach on that delivery date unless the seller can prove that the goods did conform or if it was impossible for the goods to be defective on that delivery date.
The Term Paper on The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
In the present essay the problem covered will be The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, known as UCTA and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, known as UTCCR. As things stand at present, consumers are faced with two pieces of legislation in a vital area of contracts. The main areas analysed will consist of a historical background of the Act and the Regulations, a comparison between ...
S. 35 was added in 1995 and outlines the right to partial rejection, if there is a breach of the contract “the buyer may: accept all the goods; reject all the goods; reject only the disconforming goods; reject some of the disconforming goods. ” The Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides remedies only for contracts of sale. There is other legislation that can provide remedies for defective goods in supply of goods contracts. Hire purchase contracts are covered by the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973.
So for hire purchase agreements, exactly like s. 15B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 s. 12, says that, if the creditor breaches any term then the consumer is entitled “to claim damages and if the breach is material, to reject any goods delivered under the contract and treat it as repudiated. ” Other supply of goods contracts, including; hire, exchange and work and materials contracts are covered by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. S. 1F again this shows the same remedies available as in Sale of Goods Act 1979 the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, these are the remedies shown in the last paragraph. For both the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 a material breach is also defined in the same was as in s. 15B (2) that is outlined in the third paragraph above. So the payment of damages, rejection and repudiation for supply of goods contracts are mostly the same as contracts of sale remedies.
The first difference is that the hirer is not seen to have accepted the goods after the reasonable time has passed. Another difference is, if there is a breach the hirer is not always entitled to the full sum of the payment they have made, but they will pay for the use of the good they have had and can only end the contract after that period. The remedy of rejection for supply of goods contracts is treated differently than a contract of sale. For a supply of goods contract the buyer has to make a positive act or be inactive in some way as to show acceptance, once they know about the breach, to lose their right reject.
The Term Paper on Social Contract 2
Is the aim of the social contract to establish freedom, equality or merely ‘peace’? How far is it successful, and at what cost? (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) The Social Contract is a theory that originated during the Enlightenment, which addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that ...
Rejection is also only available to the innocent party in a breach of the contract for any supply of goods contract. As shown above, there are many remedies available for the consumer, but are these seen as satisfactory. To determine whether these are satisfactory we need to look at cases where there has been a need for these remedies. For example the Douglas v Glenvarigill Co Ltd [2010] CSOH 14 case is particularly noteworthy as it highlights the uses of a few types of remedies: payment of damages, rescission with reimbursement and rejection.
Douglas bought a car from Glenvarigill Co Ltd, this car had a latent defect but by the time Douglas tried to reject the goods, claiming a breach under s. 14 of the Sales of Goods Act 1979, it was after the ‘reasonable time’ to reject even if the defect existed at delivery so rejection was not an option for Douglas. An independent mechanic examined the car, he found that there was a latent defect in the communications hub and there was a chance it had existed at time of delivery. Douglas had already tried to reject the vehicle but Glenvarigill refused. Douglas tried to claim damages of ? 5,000 as losses arising from the breach, repayment of the purchase price and tried to reject the vehicle, arguing that there had been a breach under s. 14 of 1979 Act. Douglas then argued that if he had been seen to accept the car under s. 35 (4), “The buyer is also deemed to have accepted the goods when after the lapse of a reasonable time he retains the goods without intimating to the seller that he has rejected them. ” , then he could still recede the contract under s. 48C, as s. 48A was fulfilled, as the goods did not conform at the date of delivery. The court decided that Douglas was entitled to ? 13,459. 92 in damages.
