PP slides 2 for SGA copy

Buyer argues seller has no right to sell as per our s

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: in customs and buyer does not receive the goods. Buyer argues seller has no right to sell, (as per our s. 14 of the UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ROWLAND V. DIVALL 1923 Facts: see chart Divall --------- Rowland ----- Party C Car Owner B sold to - Car Owner C, had to give to-->Car owner A UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA CONT. The buyer returned the car to the true owner and sued the seller for return of the purchase price. The C.A. held that there was a total failure of consideration. The buyer had bargained for UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Sale by Description s. 15 and 17 SGA UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Andrew brothers v. Singer 1934 • • • • Facts: Brothers purchase car from Singer for purpose of resale. Claim that the car did not comply with the terms of the contract. Accidently driven by agent of Singer “considerable distance” so when the Brothers got it, it was not a “new” car UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont. • • • • -Brothers accepted the car, did not reject it. At trial, found that the car was not ‘new’ and Singer was required under the description in the contract to deliver a “new car”. Court of Appeal agrees it is not a new car Singer argues any clause assuring UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont. • • • • • Law Wallis case (1910) Wrong seeds delivered, the exclusion clause is not valid The clause did not exclude “conditions” (e.g. terms) only warranties Description of goods is a “condition” under the law. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont. • • • Issue: The clause here does use the words “condition” So is this valid? If so, once car is accepted, the Brothers cannot reject the car and can only sue for damages. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont. • • • Applied: Contract keeps saying “new car” The Judge feels that allowing clause to hold up is allowing an express term of the contract (repeated express term) to be viciously breached (Jeff’s word not the Judges). UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont. • • • Result: If Singers intended this result (outright breaches allowed under the clause) they...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 01/23/2014.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online