Business Law

Business law

Q1

This case involves Mike who made a purchase from BSMN for the NAVWizz 500 who is seeking a recession of contract, a tortuous claim and for damages to property and exclusion clauses. Caveat Emptor may not apply as this is a commercial sale. As this case takes place after 2015 the Sales of Goods act 1979 will not apply but the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will apply.

As mike is not happy about the product he has purchased as it is not “the latest in-car must have nav appliance for 2016” as it does not contain the software he desires. Under the Consumer Rights Act (CRA) s10 as it is not fir for particular purpose as it does not have the latest software.

BSMN may use s9 to support their argument as the product of satisfactory quality as there is no defect with the product.

Ward v MGM marine

Regarding section 9.2.a “any description of the goods” s9.6 “any statement made in advertising and labelling” the good were not as described as mike was looking for the latest 2016 model and was described by BSMN as the latest in-car appliance. S11.1 “including a term that the goods will match with description”.

Arcos v Ronaasen

Mike may rely on s49.1 “services to be performed with reasonable care and skill” with regards to the markings on his dashboard.

Negligent misrepresentation may restrict the operation of an exclusion clause as the contract will be void as the goods were not as described.

Curtis v chemical cleaning and dyeing co ltd.

In regards to the sign that the manager pointed stating “all products are sold as seen” as Mike was not informed about this when purchasing the products there was no consideration meaning the contract is void.

Olley v Marborough court

Mike will seek a recession of contract and may also have an entitlement to damages.