Sale of Goods Act 1979

1. Breach of an express warranty - An express warranty is a guarantee from the seller of a product that specifies the extent to which the quality or performance of the product is assured and states the conditions under which the product can be returned, replaced, or repaired. It is often given in the form of a specific, written "Warranty" document. However, a warranty may also arise by operation of law based upon the seller's description of the goods, and perhaps their source and quality, and any material deviation from that specification would violate the guarantee. For example, an advertisement describing a product is often full of express warranties; the product must substantially conform to what is advertised. Many advertisers insert disclaimers for this purpose (e.g., "actual color/mileage/results may vary", or "not shown actual size"). Commonly, written warranties will assure the buyer that an article is of good quality and against defects in "materials and workmanship." A warranty may also apply to services that

11) Mark the items as defective returns and not for sale by declaring a low value.

Barnes, separately, had commenced proceedings in the District Court of NSW. Both proceedings were transferred to the Federal Court and heard with the proceedings issued by the ACCC. The judgment on this case was delivered on February 27, 1998 six years after Australia passed a statutory code dealing with defective goods in 1992 sixty years after the verdict on the Donoghue v Stevenson’s case.

In particular “a person must not, in trade or commerce … make a false or misleading representation that goods are of a particular standard, quality, value, grade, composition, style or model or have had a particular history or particular previous use” (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 (‘Australian Consumer Law’) s29(1)(a)).

1. Nothing in this Agreement will reduce your statutory rights relating to faulty or misdescribed goods. For further information about your statutory rights contact your local authority Trading Standards Department or Citizens’ Advice Bureau.

According to Article 35(2) (c), except the parties have agreed otherwise, the delivered goods must possess the qualities of goods which the seller has held out to the buyer as a sample or model. But, the seller still has liability to delivered goods as sample or model, even the buyer held out sample or model, if the parties agreed that the goods shall conform to such sample or model.

Section 2(1) SGA 1979 outlines that Afrosa’s contract with Foghorn Cars is governed by the act as it is a contract by which the Foghorn Cars has agreed to transfer property, that is, vehicles for a price paid by Afrosa. Sections 13 and 14 SGA 1979 imply terms which are particularly relevant. Section 13(1) relates to “sale by description” and stipulates that the goods sold must correspond to the description in the contract. There is no evidence in the facts to suggest that Foghorn Cars drew Afrosa’s attention to any defects in the goods. Therefore there should be no reason for the goods to be defective regardless of the timeframe involved. Section 14(2) relates to the quality of the goods sold and stipulates that the goods must be of “satisfactory quality”. Despite the

The Act deals with the circumstances when a consumer finds that he/she can cancel the contract under the case of an innocent or negligent misrepresentation with the right to claim damages as a legal remedy or solution. It was notable that the act gave the consumer the legal right to be compensated for the loss, which happens from any misleading signal (misstatement) that caused the inducing to enter a contract. The exceptional case here when the issuer of the statement will be able to submit evidence proving the reasonable grounds of the believing that the facts corresponded to were true at the time of the contract. The consumer, directly through civil proceedings may enforce the remedies presented by the Act. The

As shown in diagram 1, we can clearly see that the conditions where both act applies are different and somewhat similar. Under s. 4B in TPA, the conditions which differ from FTA conditions stated in s32D are:-

Statutory codification in India resulted in the elimination of one distinction between liquidated damages and penalties observed in English law. As per s. 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) irrespective of whether the stipulation is by way of liquidated damages or penalty, the court is entitled to award reasonable compensation, not exceeding the amount named in the contract. As already pointed out, under English law only penalties may be reduced to reasonable compensation

The buyer can reject the goods when the goods do not confirm to be the method of packing described by the

(a)The clause 14 is classified as exemption clause, which is also called “exclusion clauses” or “exception clauses”. By definition, the exemption clauses are terms which exclude or limit the liability of one party for breach who relies on the clause for protection. This means that the seller Mark can rely on the clause 14 to protect himself.

S.14 also states that the seller of the goods must ensure that the goods sold are of satisfactory quality and also fit for purpose. That is the daily purpose and other purposes that were specifically agreed upon between the seller and buyer. The buyer is entitled to make a claim under the SOGA where the goods fail to meet the requirement of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose the buyer is entitled to make a claim

Subject to this and any other Act, notwithstanding that the property in the goods may have passed to the

A contracts with B to pay B Rs. 1,000 if he fails to pay B Rs. 500 on a given day. A fails to pay B Rs. 500 on that day. B is entitled to recover from A such compensation, not exceeding Rs. 1,000, as the court considers reasonable.”