Some of the horns were scratched though this could have been made good by

Some of the horns were scratched though this could

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 9 pages.

where the buyer bought alarge quantity of horns. Some of the horns were scratched, though this could have been made good by polishing. The court held that all the goods supplied must pass the test under Section 14(2), and hence the buyer was entitled to reject the whole lot. This means that Houcan Pte Ltd is able to repudiate the contract, reject the goods and sue for damages. However, it must be stated that by Section 14(2C) if Houcan Pte Ltd had inspected the goods and if that examination ought to have revealed the defects, that could be used in defence of the breach of Section 14(2) by Hold Steady Ltd. Moreover, since the price has dropped, it is would be better if Houcan Pte Ltd repudiates the contract, rejects the goods and sue for damages, in any, then look for a separate supplier that would most likely be offering cheaper sand. There is a breach of Section 15 where it states that the bulk will correspond with the sample in quality. However in the case of a none consumer sale, if there is only a slight defect the buyer may only sue for damages. There is also a breach of section 13. 3. At Your Service Pte Ltd has just bought 150 new computers from Z Pte Ltd which is in the retail business. At Your Service Pte Ltd’s operations depend heavily on a highly effective computer system. On the first day, staff of At Your Service Pte Ltd, start installing the computers. Out of the 20, they manage to install on the first day, 13 have one serious problem or the other. As such At Your Service Pte Ltd wants to return all the computers immediately, get back its purchase price and sue Z Pte Ltd for all the hassle and distress it has caused. There is a clause in the contract which states that goods sold cannot be returned or exchanged. There is also a “guarantee card” which comes with each computer and which is given by the manufacturers. The manufacturers have a repair outlet in Singapore. (modified exam 2009) There are several issues here. The first issue is whether the clause that states that goods sold cannot be returned stands in the eyes of the law. The second issue is who Your Service Pte Ltd can sue for damages. Firstly, under Section 6(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, it is provided that any clause trying to
Image of page 4
exclude the liability for breach of section 12 of the Sales of Goods Act is totally invalid. Further, section 6(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act provides that in consumer sales, any attempt to exclude liability for breach of section 13, 14 or 15 would be invalid. In contrast, section 6(3) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act provides that in non-consumer sales, liability for breach of section 13, 14 or 15 may be excluded if it is reasonable. What is reasonable would depend on other factors. Therefore, in this case as Your Service Pte Ltd is a business, this can be considered as a non- consumer sale and it might be debatable on whether the clause stands in court. What is debatable could also be the fact whether this is a consumer sale or non-consumer sale. It would appear that if the computers are required for an integral part of the business, Z Pte Ltd might be able to argue
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 9 pages?

  • Spring '18
  • -
  • Pte Ltd, Tai Tai

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture