PP slides 2 for SGA copy

Buyer pulls into garage is promptly informed he is

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: . Goes to see it, Judge says has a “run” at it (considers purchasing) UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA • • • Offer made, accepted, consideration paid=contract formation 5 minutes after driving away the steering is off. Buyer pulls into garage, is promptly informed he is the proud owner of two cars welded together with a different engine. Such as result is quite different then the car described in the ad. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA • • • Car is condemned, matter goes to court Buyers sensibly says the good does not match description as per the SGA. Seller says this is not a sale by description, but a sale of “a particular car as seen, tried and approved” in other words inspected. Caveat Empoter =Buyer beware. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Law • • • Lord Wright, in Grant case: A sale by description can occur even if the good is right in front of the buyer. Seller did not give any warranties, however the description fundamentally did not match, so buyer wins (even though seller gave incorrect description UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA For consideration: • This case tells us that the SGA applies to used items, however warranties will usually not be found in a sale of used goods compared to new ones. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Acros limited U N I V E R S ITY O F ALB E R TA ALBERTA ‘Umpire’ the arbitrator to this 1933 dispute Facts: Contract in “White Sea 1928 C.I.F. form” – Note: a standard form contract at the time. Timber was to be cut in very specific measurements that UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Umpire finds that it was a summer shipment 2nd dispute-buyers reject goods because they’re not of the proper description. Umpire finds buyers not entitled UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Findings: The timber was inspected nine months after exposure to rain. It was found that the actual measurements of the timber to be “commercially within… the contract specifications” but not exactly corresponding to the UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA If seller wants a margin of error they have to stipulate this as it will not be assumed. perhaps a particular industry may have a usage or custom allowing for error, but no evidence that such margin UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Ashington Piggeries 1972 – House of Lords Sale by Description (Point form facts) “King size” mink food Change made in formula without consent UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA “Ashington Piggeries devised a recipe for mink feed, contracting in 1960 with Christopher Hill to supply ingredients and compound them. The food was marketed under UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA “When Ashington Piggeries withheld payment for the feed, Christopher Hill sued, and Ashtington Piggeries counterclaimed for damages which they claimed were caused by violation of contract. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Law: Sellers obligations merchantable quality s. 16(4) Should be able to sell it at market UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Result: The House of Lords found the DMNA was a defect in the herring meal, and not a different ingredient. The problem, they found, was in UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online