Case study Paul Price Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Case study capital of Minnesota wrong - Essay ExampleFor instance, Tefal Actifry sold the swell to capital of Minnesota Price by description. The full(a) was therefore implied to correspond to the accorded descriptions by Tefal Actifry. The failure resulted into the recess of the implied equipment casualty in section 13 of the Sale of Good Act 1979. Section 14 provides that business plurality ensure that their not bad(predicate)s are of satisfactory fit and lumber for their purpose. Tefal Actifry although described the good as satisfactory and safe, the good turned out to be disastrous, however, and other similar goods sold to other consumers proved of good pure tone and safety (Stewart 1998). Therefore if Tefal Actifry had included a clause limiting their liability, this is the point where it would cast off relied on the clause to avoid complications with the emptor, Paul Price. Paul price should be aware that when one buys a good, he or she enters into a thrust with th e seller. The goods purchased must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. The buyer, Paul Price, is provided with incompatible protections when purchasing a good under contract law. Paul Price should be aware that he got into a contract with Tefal Actifry immediately he accepted and paid for the good. There may be coincidental liability for the manufacturer in the law of tort should goods which are faulty result into any authoritative harm or injury to the buyer, his or her property, but the buyers primary propers under the contract of sale lies with the retailer (Mark 2003). According to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, there are four major protections accorded to the buyer the seller must possess the right of sale over the good (section 12), the goods that are sold with descriptions have to correspond to the granted descriptions (section 13), the good sold must have a quality that is satisfactory comely (section 14), and in section 15, all goods sold by a s ample must correspond to the quality of the sample. Paul Price should be aware of the above and observe with sound mind any breach of those protection and sue where necessary because Tefan Actifry is liable to the breach of any of those four provisions (Van 2001). Paul Price should know that the mentioned protections are statutory implied price. Therefore the Sale of Goods Act will have to put those terms into contract of the goods sold regardless of what the agreed terms and conditions of the sale that the parties have agreed on themselves. The buyer, Paul Price, should be informed that a contract is just for provided goods sold. It is a transfer ownership of the goods sold for the coin exchanged. Therefore if the seller, Tefal Actifry, breaches any of the provided terms, the statutory rights of the buyer, Paul Price, then the buyer is entitled to a remedy (Mark 2003). Therefore, Paul Price is entitled to a remedy by Tefal Actifry because of the breach of Pauls statutory right pr ovided in section 13 that the goods sold by description have to meet correspond to the given description. Tefal Actifry gave description of his good during the sale and it turned out otherwise, therefore he is liable to the damages that resulted from the good contrary to what he gave as the description during the sale (Stewart 1998). Tefal Actifry stated during the sale of the Actifry that