SALE OGF GOODS ACT

Sale ogf Goods Act

Sale ogf Goods Act

Introduction

The right of consumers to insist on goods that meet a reasonable standard of quality has long been in a state, making it difficult for advice agencies and lawyers to advise with any degree of certainty. The law governing consumer contracts for goods is found in the newly amended Sale of Goods Act 1979 and its predecessors. In this area, the old maxim 'caveat emptor' has virtually been wiped out. The sale of goods legislation which has developed over time was not drawn up with consumer contracts in mind. Original legislation was drafted to regulate the behaviour of 19th century merchants. So it is hardly surprising that the law has long been deficient when applied to consumers as opposed to commercial buyers.

Consumers trying to enforce their civil law rights in relation to faulty goods have long faced two major difficulties. First, the lack of any coherent definition of those rights, and secondly, the fact that the most important remedy, the right to reject faulty goods and secure a refund, was lost soon after purchase (Mersky & Roy, 2002, pp. 25-80.). As we shall see, problems created by hazy terminology such as acceptance, lapse of reasonable time, and merchantable quality (the standard by which the quality of consumer goods was measured) have considerably weakened consumer protection. In the century since the first Sale of Goods Act in 1893 an enormous amount of case law built up highlighting the judiciary's struggle in attempting to work out the boundaries of the law and establish precisely what merchantable meant.

Recent reform and amendment of the 1979 Act, in the guise of the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, has removed some of the problems by redefining the standard of quality required by law, and the impact of these will be examined later. Many problems remain leaving the consumer with a limited and uncertain right to reject defective goods (Mersky & Roy, 2002, pp. 25-80.).

Fraud Act 2006

The Section 15 of the Fraud Act of 2006 had made an offence in order to obtain the property dishonesty. Property is more widely explained than for land and theft of land, as well as personal property and money. It does not include the financial advantages that are falling short of real property, like a loan, a facility for overdraft, a debt cancellation, services or a bank transfer (Chris, 2010, 159-188).

The main problem with the method of accountability for fraud under the Theft Act is that it is unduly technical and complicated. However, the Act contained offences which solved some of the issues; they were liable to deal with the issues reactively and in a gradual manner. The Fraud Act 2006 brought a solution with some changes to it. In Fraud Act 2006, a general offence is developed which is committed to three different ways: Fraud by false representation:

Fraud by failing to disclose the information

Fraud by abuse of position

False Representation

The elements of the offence are as follows:

Made

A ...