Sale of Goods Act: Product Safety and Endurance

There are two instances where unconscionability comes into question by reference to cases bought forward under statute. The first being that under section 20 and the next being under section 21 both from the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). To understand these sections, both equity and the scope of unconscionability need to be examined.

The paper will serve as a historical background overview of how the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC) came into existence. The paper will also break down the key components for which the FTC covers, such as deceptive advertising, baiting and switching and consumer fraud. There will be examples

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

I can’t show exactly where in the U.C.C. it says this, but that’s the general feeling I got from reading the U.C.C. This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story. The plaintiff bought a baseball bat from the defendant and the baseball bat turned out to be broken because, as soon as the defendant used the bat to play baseball, the bat shattered into a million pieces. Shattering into a million pieces certainly violates the implied warranty of merchantability under UCC 2-314. Industria De Calcados Martini Ltda. v. Maxwell Shoe Co., 36 Mass. App. Ct. 268 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994) Also, there’s a case that expounded upon this issue and told us that a baseball bat can’t crack when it’s used normally. Otherwise, the store has to give back the money to the plaintiff. Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. J. Ct. 1993). The information that can be clearly drawn from these cases is if someone buys a baseball bat, it must be in the condition that was represented to the heretofore named parties. At least, the bat must be in sufficient marketable condition so that the implied warranty owing from the party of the first part to the party of the second part must be sustained. Also, as if those cases weren’t enough, the UCC 2-314 demands that goods must be in good condition when they are

According to the UCC §§ 2-609(2) and 2-609(4) Between merchants the reasonableness of grounds for insecurity and the adequacy of any assurance offered

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an administer of the competition and Consumer Act (CCA) which is to prevent collusion among the firms and to prevent the individual firm which break the market equilibrium with their market power. Well competitive market would deliver efficiency costs, faster innovation, prevention of unduly concentrated markets, business freedom, wealth distribution, and enhancement of international competitiveness. Therefore, the ACCC is playing a crucial role in Australia, and their activities can be divided into four categories; (1) the policies for anti-competitive conduct and anti-competitive practices, (2) the mergers policy, (3) the consumer protection policy, and (4) four pillars policy.

Under common law, the most important remedy was a suit for breach of warranty against those who sold unfit goods.

Staffs have to honour consumers’ guarantee, including express and extended warranties (Australian Consumer Law, 2013)

A union is an organized group of workers who works together using their strength to have a voice in their workplace. Having a Union employees have a right to impact wages, benefits, working conditions, work hours, job training and other work-related issues. Under the U.S. law, employees have the right to join a union. One of the key reasons workers join a union is to ensure fairness and respect in the workplace. Having a Union gives you a stronger voice in working with management to make the company stronger and have a better place to work.

Under the Uniform Commercial Code, if a buyer has accepted the goods, they may subsequently revoke acceptance if goods are nonconforming and nonconformity substantially impairs the value of the goods to the buyer. Hartz had the right to reject the soybeans due to nonconforming goods, and to notify Coleman of their intentions, which they did. The lower court found Coleman liable under the contract ?against the clear preponderance of the evidence,? and therefore, Hartz is entitled to the pursued

The Society’s argument was that the display of products was an offer, which was accepted when the customer selected and placed the products into the shopping basket. Because a pharmacist did not supervise this process, Boots was in breach of the Act. Boots argument was that the sale was effected at the till and was supervised in accordance with the Act. The lower court had found that the method used by Boots was not in contravention of the Act. Pharmaceutical Society appealed the decision.

Besides that, goods on display is an invitation to treat and it is not an offer. (Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd［1953］ 1 QB 401)

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.

It was this mergence that saw Lord Mansfield becoming known as ‘the founder of commercial law within this country [United Kingdom]’, due to his ability to harmonise ‘commercial custom and the common law ...with an almost complete understanding of the commercial community, and the fundamental principles of the old law and that that marriage of idea proved acceptable to both merchants and lawyers.’ At this stage, the principle of caveat emptor was utilised as a guiding principle for the courts, devised namely in response to the manner in which business at this time was undertaken. This was in response to the manner in which business was conducted, namely in small fairs with small quantities of goods being bought and sold, buyers were afforded the opportunity to inspect the goods and use their own knowledge and skill to determine whether or not to purchase them. As such, it was the buyer’s responsibility to ensure that due diligence was observed at the time of purchase. Failing to inspect the goods resulted in the cost would be lost if the goods purchased were not what was wanted. In this context protection for buyers was to a certain extent non-existent. The only way in which a seller could be held liable was in circumstances where a written warranty was issued or if the case was considered to be one of false affirmation.

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.