CASE A

A contract is a contract of sale by sample where there is a term in the contract express or implied
to that effect. (Section 17, SOGA 1957).
Olaf was shown a sample flour by Elsa and was satisfied the sample was shown to her and she
decided to buy the flour. However the flour was delivered to her was not same quality as the
sample given. Therefore, does Olaf have rights to sue Elsa?
According to SOGA 1957, section 17(2) reads as flow:
In the case of a contract for sale by sample there is an express or implied condition
(a) That the goods will correspond with the sample in quality
(b) That the buyer shall have rights of comparing the goods with the sample
(c) That the goods shall be free from any defect rendering the goods.
The goods were sold to the buyer sale by sample must be same in quality for the sample.
The flour that Olaf bought from Else was not same in quality for the sample that Olaf was
shown. Olaf recognized that the flour is not same in quality for sample, because she
compared with the sample and what influenced Olaf to buy flour was the sample that she
was satisfied the quality sample has and she was expecting the flour will have same
quality that the sample she has seen had. Therefore, if the goods were sold is not same in
quality for the sample there is a defect.

To conclude, since Elsa delivered the flour to Olaf is not same in quality for sample,
then flour is defect goods and the flour was inferior goods and Elsa breached the contract.
Therefore Olaf has the right to sue Else for the breach of implied condition. As there was
a case relate to this case, and the case was DRUMMONDV VAN INGEN (1887) 12 APP
CAS 284.

CASE B

SOGA 1957, section 16(1) (a) and (b) goods must be reasonably fit for purposes for which the
buyer wants them, and goods must be of merchantable quality. For the case ZAC V VERY HOT
SDN. BHD. ZAC bought hot water bottle from this company, unfortunately the bottle burst
immediately after he tried and injured his arm. Does Zac have the rights to sue Very Hot SDN.
BHD?
ZAC was expecting the bottle he bought from Very Hot SDN. BHD to be fit for his purposes. Of
course Zac did not buy the bottle to burst and wound him, but he wants to utilize the bottle for
his life. Therefore, it is very sad that the bottle was not fit for purpose. Furthermore, the bottle
was not merchantable quality, because the incident shows that the bottle was less quality that
why the bottle burst with no reason. The bottle put Zacs life in dangerous situation. It was lucky
enough that bottle injured Zac, but what about if Zac dead and those who were around. Now Zac
has physical injury and he lost money, and two of them are very series damages.
To conclude, Zac is advised, as he has enough evidence for physical and injury to sue Very Hot
SDN. BHD. The company neglect to care its customers and clients that the company did not
produce or sell a reliable goods, and Zac got injury due to less quality goods that was not fit for
purpose.

WORD NUMBERS -------------------------------------------------------- 562

REFERENCES

Rizal Razm, M., Ahmad Yuso, S., Suhor, S., Azlan, A., Ismail, R., Abdul Aziz, A. and Talib
Khal, K. (2012). Consumer Protection and Environmental Sustainability on Drinking
Bottled Water from Malaysian Sale of Goods Law Perspectives: Focusing on Statutory
Implied Terms. Research J. of Applied Sciences, 7(1), pp.36-40.
Rizal Razm, M., Azlan, A., Md. Jahi, J., Arifin, K., Aiyub, K., Awang, A. and Lukman, Z.
(2010). Consumer Protection on Food and Environmental Safety Based on Statutory
Implied Terms in Malaysian Sale of Goods Law: Focusing on Urban Sustainability.
International Business Management, 4(3), pp.134-138.
Law of Malaysia. (2006). Malaysia : Commissioner of Law Revision..pp.11-14.
Pheng L., M., and Detta, I., J. (2009). Business Law. New York: Oxford University press.