Furthermore section 142B may be used It states that the good must have fitness

Furthermore section 142b may be used it states that

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 9 pages.

Furthermore, section 14(2B) may be used. It states that the good must have fitness for all the purpose for which goods of the king in question are commonly supplied. In this case the computers are unsatisfactory as they cannot be used for their main purpose. Therefore, Your Services Pte Ltd may be able to use Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to repudiate the contract, reject the goods and sue for damages for loss of profits. However it must be said that Your Services Pte Ltd might not be able to sue for damages for distress and probably only sue for damages for the extra hassle or cost of looking for a new supplier for the computers. It was seen in Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association (1992) the court held that damages for injured feelings, loss of reputation or disappointment could ot be awarded in a breach of contract action. Hence, they would not be able to sue for distress but can still sue for damages to recover the expectation and reliance loss. We must also note that adequate steps must have been taken by Your Services Pte Ltd to minimize their losses before they can claim for damages as the manufacturer might use mitigation as a
Image of page 5
defence. However, in this case, as there was immediate reaction and Your Services explicitly stated that they wanted to reject the goods, it could be said that reasonable steps has been taken to minimize their losses and hence they can sue for the damages. Whether there is breach of section 14(2) as it is not of satisfactory quality. It is also a breach of 14(3) as it is not fit for the purpose. Section 15(A) might apply as it is not slight and they may reject all the computers. However, there is a clause to exclude the liability of Z. Under section 6(3) of the unfair contract terms act, any attempt to exclude liability for breach of section 13, 14, 15 for non-consumer sales may be excluded if it is reasonable. Firstly, on basis of Darwish v House of Hung The court held that reliance on the exclusion clause is unsound. It did not affect the power of the court to order rescission or award damages where it found the seller was in breach of the contract. (not in tb) We must see whether the exclusion clause is reasonable (pg70-71 of RC). Can argue that both are PTE LTD and they have equal bargaining strength and clause may be valid. If Z has insurance it is valid, if they do not then it is not valid. There is a gurantee card given by the manufacturer, even though there is no contract between AT YOUR SERVICE AND MANUFACTURER, there is a guranteee. Manufacture has an outlet here, at your service can seek for replacement and sue for damages. Guarantee card is undertaking given by manufacturer. 4. Pete-Tires Pte Ltd is a newly set-up import-export business, which deals with the buying and selling of rubber needed for the manufacture of motor car tyres. Its strategy is to buy rubber at a low price and sell it at a high price. After much searching it finds a suitable supplier called X in Thailand. Both companies verbally enter into an agreement for the sale and supply of rubber for a period of 2 years. The parties also agree on the price for the
Image of page 6
Image of page 7

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture