CASE NOTE Gammasonics Institute for Medical Research Pty Ltd v Comrad Medical Systems Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 267 New South Wales Supreme Court, heard by Fullerton J Gammasonic v Comrad[1] demonstrates the reluctance of the courts to interpret the Sale of Goods Act to include software downloads as a “good”, preferring to leave the matter up to statutory review. It primarily discusses whether a software package delivered by online download is effectively classed as “goods" for application of Sale of Goods Act[2] and outlines the progressive court decisions that have considered the question and have begun to recognize software attached to a medium, like a cd package as a “goods”. It also briefly addresses the applicability of …show more content…
The Sale of Goods Act 1923 The definition of goods provided in the Sale of goods Act 1923 (NSW) s5(1) is Goods include all chattels personal other than things in action and money. The term includes emblements and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. It was submitted by Gammasonics that the software provided by Comrad was within the statutory definition of "goods" and they relied among other things on the implied condition as to quality or fitness in the act outlined in s19.[9] On appeal a request was made to consider whether there was a “Fresh Analysis of Authorities”[10] with a more modern approach to interpretation of the Act. Whether a software package delivered by online download is effectively classed as "goods" for application of Sale of Goods Act.[11] The case gives a thorough analysis and contains a comprehensive list of authorities that include case law and secondary sources which have reviewed this question. The key area of difference noted was that the software was delivered by download onto a server. This distinguished the case from that of others including Toby Constructions Products Pty Ltd v Computa Bar (Sales) Pty Ltd[12] where the software was held to be a ‘good’ because it comprised both software and hardware. Gammasonics relied on a passage from Advent Systems Ltd v Unisys Corp [13] as
Jan Hughes, Plaintiff-Appellant v, Boston Scientific corporation, Defendant-Apellee., 631F .3d 762 (2011), United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (January 21, 2011)
On March 26, 2008, Hughes filed an initial grievance against Boston Scientific in the district court of Mississippi, seeking recovery of injuries allegedly caused by the HTA medical device. A summary judgment was awarded to Boston Scientific on the court’s conclusion that all claims made by Hughes are preempted under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. On
Microsoft is referred to as the ‘intervener’ in this case (CITT, 2014). Corel is seeking a compensation award from the Tribunal since Corel was unable to participate in the competition for the procurement, which meant that they could not make any profits, and Corel incurred expense costs in preparing their complaints.
Consumer protection also imposes additional costs onto a business since it is mandatory that they comply with these laws. If they do not comply they risk fines and ultimately being put out of business by a court of law. The Consumer Rights Act is now operating in place of the Sales of Goods, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and the Supply of Goods and Services Act. The Consumer Rights Act was introduced in October 2015 to simplify, strengthen and make clearer an individual’s rights when acting as a consumer. Similarly to the Sale of Goods Act, under the Consumer Rights Act all products must be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described. Under the Consumer Rights Act individuals have a legal right to discard goods that are of unsatisfactory quality, unfit for purpose or not as described, and get a full refund. This right is limited to 30 days from the date the product is bought. After 30 days the consumer will not be legally entitled to a full refund if the item develops a fault. With digital products such as apps or games consumers can ask for the product to be repaired or replaced if it develops a fault. And if this isn't possible, individuals have the right to receive a price
The relevant Act contained an objects clause which specified the purpose of the Act, however, within the body of the Act there were two conflicting provisions. There was no doubt the Australian Content Standard was authorised by the literal reading of the words of the relevant provision. However, another provision which was inconsistent with that section made the literal meaning very doubtful.
Property: The right to claim and hold property; When it has been laboured for, one encloses it for greater individual profit the profit of the community of Man, it has been laboured for – Natural means of ownership one encloses it – The process of holding legal “deed” for greater individual profit – to build investment equity and avoid poverty of waste the profit of the community of Man – Moral commitment to Human Development (Locke: 1689).
The case raised questions regarding proper construction of provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) relating to a valid visa application.
Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:
d. Obtain and promptly deliver or tender to the buyer any document necessary to enable the buyer to obtain possession of the goods from the carrier.
- The UCC defines goods as something that you can touch and can be moved for the contract of sale.
Article 2 does not apply to contracts for the sale of real estate or stocks and bonds
ROSENBERGER ET AL. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA ET AL. 515 U.S. 819 (1995)
The definition of goods is given as any tangible moveable items. Shoppers are now guaranteed a full refund up to 30 days after the purchase of the defective product. This demand for a full refund with a fixed time limit provides better protection for consumers as the duration was previously unclear and legitimate claims could be rejected by businesses due to prior legislation only providing refunds if within a reasonable time. This time limit is provided for under Section 22(3) which gives the consumer the right to reject the goods. After 30 days, retailers will be given one opportunity to repair or replace the defective product and this is dependent on the customer.
The rise of the Internet era opened the whole new market for traditional media full of opportunities as well as threats. Online piracy being one of them because the music and film industry loses £5.4bn in a year and if it was reduced by 10% it could have created up to 13 thousand jobs in the UK. There are various attempts taken to fight with online piracy; a case study of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will be considered as well as other legislations attempting to regulate copyrights in the Internet. This
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 controls English law transactions between the purchaser and the seller of goods; it also applies to contracts where involving a transfer of the property in goods or an agreement to transfer a consideration in money.