hnd 商务契约关系 outcome1

《hnd 商务契约关系 outcome1》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在行业资料-天天文库。

1、Case1Q1：Maggie没受伤，她是否有权利起诉SELLER；商品是inasale,是否影响MAGGIE的权利？（买方和卖方的关系）A1：1，Yes,shecandothat.2，ThebasiclawisthesellerviolationtheImpliedTermsofSOGA1979.Itisincludefourterms.a)Section12SOGA1979ImpliedTermsofTitleb)Section13SOGA1979SalebyDescriptionc)Section14SO

2、GA1979SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforPurpose.d)Section15SOGA1979SalebySampleThiscasewasviolationSection14SOGA1979.Section14impliedtwoterms:SatisfactoryQualityandReasonableFitnessforthePurpose.ThemajorviolationofthiscaseisSatisfactoryQuality.⑴Thes

3、tandardofSection14ofSOGA1979is“thatareasonablepersonwouldregardassatisfactorytakingaccountofanydescriptionofthegoods,theprice(ifrelevant)andallotherrelevantcircumstances”.⑵TherearefactorsthatarelistedinSection14ofSOGA1979aspotentiallyrelevantinappropriateca

4、ses:☉Fitnessforthepurposeforwhichgoodsofthekindinquestionarecommonlysupplied.☉Appearanceandfinish☉Freedomfromminordefects☉Safetyand☉Durability⑶Inthiscase,thetumbledryerislackofsafetyanddurability.Maggiejustboughtittwomonths,soitstillanewtumbledryer.Itwascau

5、ghtfire.Clearly,itislackofdurability.Thetumbleisalatentdefectinthewiringthatleadtodetonate.Sowesaiditislackofsafety.3,Maggieboughtthetumbledryerinasale,butitdoesnotdiminishthebuyer’srightsunlesstheyareclassedas“seconds”etcoraparticulardefectisbroughttotheat

6、tentionofthebuyerasbeingthereasonforthereductioninprice.Maggiedidnotknowthebugofthetumbledryerbeforeshebuyit.SoMaggie’srightsshouldnotbediminished.4,◎ThecitedcaseisThomsonvJSears＆Co(1926),thepursuerpurchasedbootsforhimselfandsufferedperiostosisofthefootasar

7、esultoftheinsolehavingcrumpledupandbecomeknottedandnodular.Itshouldbeobviousthatthebootsweregoingtobewornasfootwear.◎InthecaseofPriestVLast(1903),abuyerwasscaldedafterusingahotwaterbottleandwassuccessfulinsuingtheselleronthebasisthatthebottlewasunfitforthep

8、urpose.Strictliabilityalsoappliesanditisnodefencethatthesellerhasdoneallthatisreasonabletoavoidbreachoftheprovision.(nao)◎InthecaseofFrostVAylesburyDairyCOltd(1905),wheretheplaintiff’swifediedfromconsu