Case Study on Liability for Supply Defective Product Coursework

Case Study on Liability for Supply Defective Product - Coursework Example Paul Price has the right to demand for the repairing of the Actifrys or ask for a replacement or demand for a credit note. If any customer has incurred any pecuniary losses due to usage of such faulty products, the retailer has the every responsibility to make good the loss sustained by Paul Price. Under Limitation Act 1980, a customer has up to six years to initiate legal proceedings against the retailer for the supply of defective product.(Bhatia, 2008:458). APPLICATION The Sale of Goods Act (Amended) will be applicable to all transactions where products are transferred for a consideration or price. Contracts of sale may be either implied or expressed with stipulations concerning any contract, or refer to mere consumer contracts. Nonetheless, once it has been decided that the Sale of Goods Act is applicable to a transaction, there are some stipulations implied in the sale by the Act. A seller cannot avoid these stipulations. For each sale of products, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 sti pulates that wherever there is a sale of products by depiction, there exists an implied stipulation simultaneously that the products offered will have to be identical to their description. Thus, the seller must offer the consumer what has been advertised. S.13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (amended) is applicable to all sales, whether by business or individuals. Anyone who offers a product to another will be covered. S.13 is applicable to all products with no concern over purchasing scenario. S.13 is a significant section as it offers the right to a consumer either to obtain a refund or to reject a product. The consumer has the right either to accept or reject a product and is not at the mercy of a seller. S.30 of the Act offers protection to a consumer where the products are not corresponding to the description, and also offers a relief to the buyer if the quantity or description of the products differs from what has been advertised or requested. S.14 of the Act stipulates that pro duct sold should be of merchantable quality. If a consumer purchased the product after 2003, he has every right to request either to repair or replace the defective products within 6 months of receiving the products. (Bryan, 2009:16). Even if the shop where the purchase was made had included an exclusion clause limiting liability, still the shop cannot escape from the liability to Paul Price. Exclusion clause cannot offer any protection to the seller even when exclusion clause tries to shun accountability to consumers. The sellers usually will incorporate the exclusion clause into the contract by trying to have a blanket avoidance of any accountability to the buyers for any detriment, loss, injury or damage and even in case of death. In the majority of cases, courts have declined to implement such clauses if they are not brought to the attention of the buyer at the time of signing the contract or if the exclusion clause imposes unduly exorbitant or onerous penalties. Further, as the exclusion clauses are so damaging to the rights of the consumers, courts will always have narrow interpretation, and this is known as â€Å"contra proferentemâ€Å" rule under English Law. (Jones & Benson, 2011:298). In â€Å"Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805†