out about the tear, it would provide a valid defence for the breach of section 14(2) and the seller would not have to accept the rejected suit and there is no fundamental breach.Not about whether there is fundamental breach.Issue is whether there was a breach of the Sales of Goods acts. Section 14(2). Rogers v Parish. Given that she paid 7000 and it is a designer brand, it is reasonable for her to expect good quality. As it is a breach of Section 14 can repudiate the contract, reject the goods and sue for damages. Also can use Section 12 of unfair contract terms act.The boutique could have said they told her there was a tear. Buyer, is under no duty to check the goods, however, if she checks and by right she could have found it.However, she can say that she missed out on the tear as it was at the corner and she might not have been able to see it as you would normally just check the front.(b)What if she goes to the boutique 7 months later to return the suit?The issue here is whether the duration would have implied that Tai Tai has already accepted the suit.
Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act states that the buyer would be deemed to have “accepted”the goods if he does any act in relation to the goods which is inconsistent with the ownership of the seller, of if he intimated tot eh seller that he has so accepted the goods, or if he keeps the goods for more than a reasonable period of time without informing the seller that he has rejected them. Once the buyer is deemd to have accepted the goods, he would lose his right to reject the goods. (correct)As stated above, if the buyer keeps the goods for more than areasonable period of time without informing the seller that he has rejected them, he would lose his right to reject. What is reasonable would depend on the facts of each case. The time allowed may not be too long, though much may depend on the actual circumstances. (correct) (Immediate action ought to be taken. Normally stores will give 2 weeks to return the goods)In this case, 7 months may be considered to be too long and Tai tai could have lost the right toreject the goods. Unless Tai Tai has actually tried to call the Mangosteen to ask if she can return the suit but no answer was given to her. This was shown in the case of Fujifilm (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultimate Packaging Pte Ltd(2012). Where the court held that the delay if between 8 to 12 months did not prevent the buyer from rejecting the printer as the buyer was merely trying to resolve the issue with the seller by getting the seller to do repairs.(c)What if the reason for wanting to return the suit was that she did not like the colour or size? In this case the issue is whether if this can be considered to be a problem with the good corresponding to its description.