PieterKr
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Hi,

I am a german law student and currently work on my thesis about the comparison of german and scottish contract law.

I have some difficulties to understand how damages/rejection under the sale of goods act work in some specific non-consumer cases and I would be glad to get some help on the topic.

1. Scenario: The delivered goods have a (material) defect in quality that wasn't noticeable when the buyer examined the goods.

As I understand, the buyer has to examine the goods and reject them if they are not in conformity with the contract, s.35 of the Sale of Goods Act.
In this case the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods after a reasonable lapse of time.
Can the buyer still treat the contract as repudiated, return the goods and claim damages?


2. Scenario: This leads back to a famous german case I want to compare:
The buyer bought some material to build a soccer field, but after he finished building the field it was discovered, that the used material is actually not fit for the purpose. The seller knew what the material was being used for.
The buyer examined the goods properly but was not able to notice the defect.
Is the buyer entitled to damages for...
... the extra costs for the removal of the defective goods from the soccerfield?
... the extra costs for buying suitable material on the market?
... the extra costs for reinstalling the material on the soccerfield?

How I would solve it:
Using the material should lead to acceptance under s.35 (1) (b) of the Sale of Goods Act, so the buyer cannot reject the goods anymore and treat the contract as repudiated.
Therefore the buyer has to keep the goods and claim damages under s.53A (2) of the Act. The measure of damages is the difference in value.
But what about the other damages? Are removal and re-installation "special" damages because of the second rule of Hadley v Baxendale?


I apologize for any spelling/gramar mistakes and I am looking forward to reading your responses!
If you need further information please comment!

Kind regards,
Pieter
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I would point out its not the Sales of Goods Act anymore, but the relevant UK consumer law is contained in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which is now in force.
0
reply
PieterKr
Badges: 0
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#3
It is a non-consumer case, the buyer not a consumer.I should have made that more clear, sorry.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you give consent for uni's to contact your parent/trusted person in a mental health crisis?

Yes - my parent/carer (138)
33.91%
Yes - a trusted person (107)
26.29%
No (110)
27.03%
I'm not sure (52)
12.78%

Watched Threads

View All