CASE ANALYSIS

Case Analysis of Chip Pans up in Smoke

[Student name]

[Instructor name]

Answer no. 1

Tefal Actifry is genuinely concerning Paul Price (Behagg, 2008). He bought the good; however, the good did not work properly, gave sparks and caught fire. Paul Price has many rights originating from this incidence. First, he can have the good repaired (Sale of Goods Act, 1979, S. 48B). However, it does not appear that the Actifry could be repaired now. Then, he can have the good replaced (SOGA, S. 48B). He will be better off if he gets the good replaced, it appears. Finally, he can simply ask the seller (Tefal) for a refund of his purchase (SOGA, S. 48C).

The Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979 reads: “the buyer may require the seller - a) to repair the goods, or b) to replace the goods.” The Section 48C reads: “the buyer may - b) rescind the contract with regard to those goods.”

In the case of J&H Ritchie Limited v. Lloyd Limited, [2007] UKHL 9, the buyer wanted to reject the goods as the goods had been found to be defective. The case cites that the goods “materially dis-conform to the contract on delivery.” In that case, the appeal honourable judge granted the appeal and the respondents were mandated to repay the price of the goods which they had purchased under the SOGA as agricultural equipment. Furthermore, the appellant had also sought the repair of the goods which had been readily provided. However, still the product or good did not function as per the requirement and finally the appellant had to rescind the contract.

In another case, (Slater v. Finning Ltd. [1996] UKHL 59), the defenders supplied the pursuers with the camshafts and associated followers, which were contested to be of inferior quality. The respondents offered a complete overhaul of the engines implying the repair section of the SOGA. However, the appellants insisted that only a new engine would provide the necessary functionality. Consequently, the appellant sought damages to the tune of £662,500. They also asked for interest related to the sale of good. However, the petition was dismissed, as the good delivered was fit. Nonetheless, the damage that had been experienced was not because the good was not fit for use, but it was due to external factors.

In yet another case, (Boyter v. Thomson, [1995] UKHL 20), the cabin cruiser boat was purchased on behalf of Harbour Marine and Leisure. However, later it was discovered that the boat was unfit for consumption and seafaring. Accordingly, the pursuer sought damages. However, it was found that conditions of the principal and agent were involved, and; therefore, the laws relating to agency relationships were more important.

These cases show that the claim of Paul Price remains restricted to seeking a repair or replacement. However, he will be ineligible for making any claims as to the damages. Paul Price bought the Tefal Actifry. However, he assumed that the product will work well and will not give him any tough time. Still, when ...