The identification of Harry's rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

The identification of elicits rights - Essay ExampleAt this point, it should be far-famed that there is no problem as of the capacity of Harry to proceed to the purchase since he is non minor nor he suffers from a mental illness (s.3 Sales of Goods Act of 1979, MacLeod 2002). When ordering the table, Harry mentions to the gross revenue assistant that he wants a table similar to that of the poster in the shops windowpane it is implied that the bed ordered should be of the same size, technical characteristics and colour as the bed illustrated in the particularized poster (s.13(1) SOGA, Curtis v Ghemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd 1951, Andrews v Hopkinson 1957) former(a)wise an issue of misrepresentation somewhat quality would exist (Cranston 2000, p.148) In accordance with the case study, that bed was grey therefore, Harry expected to watch a similar bed when making the order (s.13 (1) SOGA). At the same time, Harry picked a contribute from the shops catalogue and made the rele vant order. Again, the item ordered, the chair is defined through a photo of the item presented to the customer. This means that Harry did non have the chance to examine, closely, the size or the other qualities of the items ordered (Law Commission, 2009, p.9). He was only able to define their required characteristics through photographs. It should be noted that Harry did not explain to the vender the conclude of the goods, so the court could decide that the seller is not liable(p) for the fact that the products be not arrest for purpose (Reddy & Johnson 2011, p.22, Jewson Ltd v Leanne Teresa Boyhan 2004, BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a assort Services) 2011). At this point, the following issues should be discussed a) whether the items were judge (s32 SOGA), and b) whether the items met the requirements of the law in ask to not fit for purpose products. The time framework available to Harry in order to make his claims should be also examined. In accordance with the Sal es of goods Act 1979, the time framework for the buyer to develop claims against the seller in regard to the items interchange is 28 days from the date of the sale (as such term is commonly added in contracts in order to define the reasonable time during which the right of the buyer to reject the goods sold is retained, s35(4) SOGA). Harrys rights, as derived from the specific sale, are active. Harry can approach the seller with a claim for faulty products within the period of 28 days from the date of the sale, meaning the date when the sale was completed, i.e. when the buyer accepted the goods (Chen-Wishart 2007, p.595). The period of 28 days had not passed it begins from the day that Harry checked the goods, in the context that the seller has to give to the buyer a reasonable time for checking the goods and Harry was absent which means he could not check the goods (s.35 SOGA, Law Commission, 2009, p.10). Also, the English courts have held that the silence of the buyer cannot be considered as acceptance of the goods sold (Felthouse v Bindley 1862, Hannah Blumenthal 1983). However, in order for the above claims to be valid, it needs to be proved that the products sold are not fit for purpose. The law, the Sales of goods Act 1979 (SOGA), sets the criteria under which a product is considered as not fit for purpose a) it does not match the description (s.13, SOGA), b) is not of satisfactory quality (s14.2 SOGA) and c)