Sale Of Goods Act 1908 And Consumer Guarantees Act 1993: An Overview

Overview of Sale of Goods Act 1908 and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

The transactions in relation to the sale of goods are governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1908. It imposes a duty upon the sellers to make sure that the goods they are selling are of acceptable quality and is durable in nature. It also enumerates the obligations that are imposed upon the buyer and the seller in relation to commodities.

1. In the given situation, a contract has been created by Lisa with Paul with respect to the sale of a shed and the same has been enumerated in a written form. Any contract entered into under section 3 and containing all the elements mentioned in section 5 is a contract relating to the sale of goods under this Act.
2. Section 20 of the Act does not renders the ownership to be transferred to the buyer owing to the reason of any alteration made to the item in order to make it deliverable without being brought to the knowledge of the buyer. Hence, in this situation the ownership does not shifts to Paul because of the repairs made.

iii. Section 22 of the Act requires the ownership to be held by the seller until the transfer is effected. In this case the shed was destroyed in the possession of the seller without any of the parties’ contribution to the same.  Therefore, under section 9 the contract became void.

The delivery with respect to the goods has not been made before the fire and was in the custody of Samantha. This will imply the ownership to be vested in Samantha. Hence, the loss will be carried by Samantha as the contract for sale became void under section 9.

The advertisement describes the item to be amphitrite soyabean oil, but the delivery has been made that of a lubricating oil, which is a contravention of section 15 requiring the goods to match the description of the advertisement. Moreover, section 16 requires the goods to be of acceptable quality which has also been contravened in this situation. Therefore Jo has a right to reject the item.

1. In this situation, the payment has been made with respect to the carpet, but the delivery has not been effected. Moreover, the goods has been destroyed in fire without the fault of the seller or the buyer. Hence, it can be concluded that applying section 9 the sale was been declared to be void and the seller is required to bear the losses and refund the price of the goods to the buyer.
2. The alterations made in the goods to bring it to the deliverable state does not result in the transfer of ownership to Charles under section 20. Moreover, delivery of the goods being pending, the loss caused will be borne by the seller and a reimbursement needs to be provided to Charles.

iii. The demolition of the music system has rendered the contract to be void under section 9. This is an indication of the loss to be mitigated at the expense of the seller. However, as in this situation the music system was in the possession of Pat, applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment Pat will be required to make payment with respect to the price of the music system to Rick Jones Electrical Ltd.

The Sale of Goods Act has been replaced by the Consumer Guarantees Act of 1993. This Act strives to protect the interest of the consumers making purchase of goods for personal use. It also extends to the services availed. The sellers are required to maintain quality and fitness of the goods. The sellers are also mandated to deliver goods, which matches the description that has been provided at the time of making the sale.

In the instant case, Nelson Marine Ltd has made the sale of the Yacht, which was unfit to be used in the sea. This is a violation of section 6 of the Act, which obligates the goods to be of acceptable quality, safe, durable and fit for the purpose for which it has been bought. The Yacht was not only unfit but was dangerous if used in the sea. The life jackets however are bought in a second hand sale and the seller is not a trader hence it is outside the purview of this Act. Therefore, Alex will get a remedy for the Yacht but not for the life jackets.

Provisions and obligations under Sale of Goods Act 1908

Alex needs to be provided with a remedy for the Yacht. As the Yacht is not in the condition to be repaired, the same needs to be replaced by NML.

1. In this situation, the paint was not fit to be used in rimu wood but the sales assistant, Bob represented it to be fit for rimu. Hence, this can be inferred to a breach of the section 9 of the Act which requires the good to match the description. Therefore, it can be concluded that the liability lies upon the store towards Sarah for the delivery of goods which is of unfit quality and not matching the description as the decision of Sarah has been based upon the judgement of the sales assistant.
2. In this case, Sarah has made the purchase of the paint depending upon the representations made by Bob. This imposes a duty upon the store and extends a remedy to Sarah. Again, the mode in which the remedy will be extended to Sarah is the sole discretion of the Store. The store can provide a refund to Sarah or extend a replacement. The store may also provide Sarah with a paint of the same description.

iii. The store has failed to make the delivery of the paint, which matches the description after providing assurance of the same. Hence, Sarah has the right to claim a refund from the store and avail the paint from another store under section 18.

1. A refund of the price of the paint can be availed by Sarah in the event of the unavailability of such a paint, which works on rimu. This will be available to Sarah owing to the misleading representation made by the sales agent of the store. The store also has the liability to reimburse Sarah of all the expenses that has been incurred by her for the misrepresentation.
2. This Act is not applicable to the goods that are purchased for the commercial purposes. However, the fridge, in this situation has been bought to be used in the house of Lucky. Therefore, this situation attracts the provisions of this Act. The quality and durability of the fridge in this case was not ensured as the fridge has stopped working within a month and this amounts to a contravention of section 7 of this Act. This will incur a remedy in favour of Lucky under the provisions of this Act.

The Aukland Fridge Suppliers (AFL) needs to complete the repair of the disputed fridge within a time, which can be regarded as reasonable and deliver it to Lucky. The expenditure of repairing the same will be incurred upon the Aukland Fridge Suppliers (AFL) and no expense amount can be claimed from Lucky in that furtherance. The Aukland Fridge Suppliers (AFL) also has the option of making refund of the cost incurred by Lucky for the disputed product and also may replace the product. The collateral damages can also be claimed by Lucky.

A restriction is imposed upon the seller in making deceptive and misleading statements regarding the quality and standard of their product and make true and genuine statements regarding the description of the goods under section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 and also section 13 of the Act. The advertisement made by the company in this this case has mentioned the goods to be manufactured from 100% New Zealand Merino Wool. The goods were also claimed to be manufactured in New Zealand. But later on it has been discovered that the statements made in the advertisement were false and the material of the product was 85% Australian Merino and 15% Polyester. Moreover, the clothing was discovered to have been manufactured in China. This conduct can be conceived as misleading, false and likely to cause deception under the provisions of this Act. This will make the company liable under this Act.

a)a) In the present situation, the issue that arises is whether any liability is incurred by Specialist Laboratory Services Ltd for making false and misleading representations towards Bhavin.

1. b) The Act restraints the sellers to indulge into the act of deception and making misleading and false statements about the quality, description and standard of the product while effecting a sale of the commodity under section 9 and section 13 contained in the Fair Trading Act 1986. In case of any contravention with respect to these sections, a compensation amounting to $600,000 will be incurred upon the seller to pay to the buyer under section 40 of the Act. The Disputes Tribunal may be approached in this furtherance for the mitigation of the losses that has been caused to the buyer. The amount of any lesser value as a compensation will depend upon the discretionary power of the Tribunal. In rendering a statement to be misleading, the same needs to be examined from the perspective of the person of reasonable conscience. Section 13 of the Act, which prohibits misleading and false statement to be made regarding the origin of the commodity, has been violated in this case.
2. b) The advertisement published by Keen in the newspaper was false and likely to mislead in the present situation. The statement that he made regarding the training of famous athletes has been found to be deceptive and the conclusion that Keen has aimed to inculcate within the mind of the viewer of the advertisement regarding his skills as a trainer was also vague. Hence, a contravention of section 13 has been caused. Again, the claims that has been made by Keen in the advertisements with respect to the utility of the training program was also not true as it is not based upon enough research. This amounts to a violation with respect to section 12A. The conduct of Keen has attracted the section 40, 42 and 41 of this Act and would be followed by an investigation and the actions of penal nature in relation to the same.
3. The Act restraints the sellers to indulge into the act of deception and making misleading and false statements about the quality, description and standard of the product while effecting a sale of the commodity under section 9 and section 13 contained in the Fair Trading Act 1986. A violation with respect to section 9 and also with respect to section 13 has been committed in this situation by the Food Storage Ltd, as the advertisement made by them contends their product to be not genetically modified, which was not purely true. Hence, it can be stated that the advertisement made by the Food Storage Ltd was misleading and violative of the Act.

Case 1

1) A dismissal is considered to be an unfair one, when the same has been effected in the furtherance of any reason, which is not genuine or which is not just. The employment of Hans has been terminated for his poor performance that has been conceived from the evaluations made by the students. The employer has furnished notice of the same to Hans and also made a suggestion to improve. Hans has ignored all of these and has been asked by the employer to furnish an explanation of the same. However, such a chance of providing explanation has been refused by Hans. Therefore, the employer has just and reasonable ground to terminate the employment of Hans under the Employment Relations Act 2000.

Provisions and obligations under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

2) The employer in dismissing Hans has failed to follow the procedure that they are supposed to comply with under the Employment Relations Act 2000, in effecting the termination. A dismissal needs to be carried out with a prior notice served upon the employee containing the reason for such dismissal and other relevant particulars mandated by the Act. Hans was also required to be served upon with a notice period of one week that the employer failed to serve.

Case 2

An act of sexual harassment in workplace is unlawful under the the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The same has been defined in section 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. In the present case, Lucretia has been subjected to sexual harassment by Sextus and the same has been informed to the employer but no action has been taken. In such a case, the first thing that the company is required to do is to initiate an investigation of the matter in question. The company should have lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission about the incident. The company should also take appropriate actions against Sextus or else the company will incur vicarious liability for the same. However, before taking any actions against Sextus, the company should investigate the matter. The company should implement policies to mitigate the same and establish disciplinary committee to redress such problems.

Case 3

The company in the given situation failed to follow the procedures laid down by the Employment Relations Act 2000  in effecting the dismissal of an employee. In this instant situation, being more than  five years old employee, Rob was required to be furnished with a notice of four weeks prior to dismissal. Again, as the violation of laws amounts to gross misconduct, notice is not mandatory.

Case 4

The dismissal of Mary in this situation is unfair and the employment contract between the employer and Mary has been created irrespective of the pending signatures in the written documents. This is because of the reason that under the Employment Relations Act 2000, the employment should be effected with a written and signed document but the law does not render the unwritten employment contract to be void. All negotiations with respect to timings of work and other requirements were effected. Hence, the employment has been formed validly and the termination of the same was unfair.

Case 5

An act of sexual harassment in workplace is unlawful under the the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The same has been defined in section 28A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. In such a case, the company should have lodged a complaint in the Australian Human Rights Commission about the incident. The company should also take appropriate actions against the alleged person or else the company will incur vicarious liability for the same. In such a case, the first thing that the company is required to do is to initiate an investigation of the matter in question. The company should implement policies to mitigate the same and establish disciplinary committee to redress such problems.

1 a) The employer is required to maintain safety and proper conditions in the workplace under Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, so that the employees are comfortable in working there. In this situation, the tremendous work pressure within the employees has overburdened them failing to ensure safety and health of the employees. The accident has occurred as a consequence of the negligent conduct of the employer and makes him liable for the same.

1 b) The employer is required to maintain safety and proper conditions in the workplace so that the employees are comfortable in working there under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The responsibility of ensuring the safety of all the persons who are related with the business and is regularly required to visit the workplace is of the employer. The employer needs to ensure a safe environment in the workplace.

2 a) The employer in this situation has failed in ensuring the rotation in relation to shifts and the break timings and schedules were not appropriate. There was no supervision to monitor the conduct of the employees. The management and the supervisors rarely communicated. There was no proper handling of machinery and the workplace was not safe. The employees were not provided with adequate resting hours.

2b)

Reference

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986

Consumer Guarantee Act 1993

Fair Trading Act 1986

Sale of Goods act 1908

Sex Discrimination Act 1984

Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:

Turnitin Report

Formatting

Title Page

Citation

Outline

Place an Order