Internet Sales Law

Firstly this essay will point out the areas that the case between Mr. Dusko and the seller of the kitten fall under regards the sale of the kitten. Section 14(2) & (3) applies in the case between Mr. Dusko and the seller as well as strict liability. The essay will also point out the satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose again under section 14(2) & (3). The essay will go to show further subsections with section 14 (2a,b,c,d,e) all being looked at regards there relevance to the case. Then the essay will go on to state the short term right to reject followed buy the four remedies repair, replacement, rescission and reduction in price.

Firstly Mr. Dusko went to view the kitten after seeing the advert means this didn't come under section 13 as this section is more concerned with the description and not the quality. The fact that the seller is selling a normal kitten for 200 and falsely describing the kitten as a ‘pure bred' would seem that the seller is looking to make a substantial profit on the transaction even if it is just a one-off transaction. This would relate to the case between Ashington Piggeries Ltd and another v Christopher Hill Ltd; Christopher Hill Ltd v Norsildmel; [Conjoined appeals] - [1971] 1 All ER 847.

This would then fall under section 14(2) where the seller sells goods in the course of a business; there is also an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. ( Adams.J, Macqueen.H 2010) Mr. Dusko is said to want to return the kitten which means he feels the kitten is not of merchantable quality that is in the term Implied within the sales of goods act 1979 section 14(2). Moreover this relates to the Stevenson v Rogers case [1999] 1 All ER 613, where the judge ruled that Stevenson had been selling in the course of a business as when he sold the boat to Rogers in April 1988 as he had previously owned and sold one other boat which was the Dolly Mop. The courts decision was held as the sale was in the course of a business and it was his duty to ensure the boat was of satisfactory quality. It could be argued that the seller as falsely advertised the kitten regards the fact that he put ‘Pure Bred' and his description is wrong of which Mr. Dusko was later told by the judges at a competition that the kitten was not a "pure bred'. The fact that Mr. Dusko as viewed the kitten before purchasing means that section 13 cannot be relied upon. The behavior of the cat is not that of a pure bred and would therefore not be of merchantable quality.

Section 14(2a) is also involved which states the ‘where the seller acts in the course of a business the goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking into account the description of the goods the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances'. (Legislation.gov.uk