UCDF1405ACC INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT ABUS026-4-2

Table of Contents

1.0 Question 1 ............................................................................................................................ 2

2.0 Question 2 ............................................................................................................................ 3

3.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 4

1|Page
UCDF1405ACC INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT ABUS026-4-2

1.0 Question 1
According to situation given, the issue is to advise Andrea if Dorothy has breached the
implied term of Act 1957(SOGA) that made Andrea suffered from skin allergies.

Based on section 16(1), it states that there is no implied warranty or condition as to

quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale (Pheng
& Detta, 2009). However, there is an exception for it, which is under section 16(1)(a). It
provides that where buyer, expressly or impliedly make known to the seller the purpose for
buying the required goods. Here the request would indicate that the buyer relies on the sellers
skill or judgement if the goods required are matched to the fitness and the purpose of the goods
(Abdullah & Chua, 2003). Additionally, Andrea is relied on Dorothys skill and judgement
because Andrea had told Dorothy about her skin condition, so Dorothy should recommend a
dress that without the material of wool but she failed to do so. The case supported is Griffiths
v Peter Conway Ltd. In this case, it held that plaintiff was unable to recover for the breach of
fitness for purpose due to the plaintiff did not make clear to the seller that she had an abnormally
sensitive skin (Pheng & Detta, 2009). Moreover, for Andreas case the fact is different because
Andrea had made clear to Dorothy that she was allergies to wool and Dorothy still
recommended a dress with some strands of wool to Andrea and after wearing this particular
dress, Andrea was subsequently had to hospitalized due to the severity of her skin allergies.

As a conclusion, Dorothy is considered as breached of implied term of section 16(1)(a)

because she did not recommend a dress without the material of wool as required by Andrea.
Thus, Andrea is able to claim for the damages from LowShop.

2|Page
UCDF1405ACC INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT ABUS026-4-2

2.0 Question 2
Based on the scenario given, the issue is to advise Nathan as to the nature of the said
breach.

Nathan purchased a smelter that did not attain the temperature required for melting
metals from Smelters and Co. According to section 12(1) of SOGA, it implies that a term can
be either a condition or a warranty. By section 12(2) of SOGA, a term which is essential to
contract and breach of condition would allow the injured party has right to reject the contract.
Section 12(3) of SOGA provides that a warranty is referred to stipulation collateral to the main
purpose of the contract, breach of it which would allow other party has right to claim for
damages but did not have right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. However,
there is a circumstances where contract may not be repudiated even though there is a breach of
condition which governed under section 13(1), buyer may waive the condition or elect to treat
a breach of the condition as a breach of warranty and cannot repudiate the contract. (Baksh &
Arjunan, 2005).Nathans case can be illustrated in the case of Associated Metal Smelters Ltd
V Tham Cheow Toh. For this case, the Federal Court allowed the plaintiff to treat the breach
of condition as a breach of warranty as defendant failed to supply a furnace which would meet
the required temperature to melting metals (Pheng & Detta, 2009).

In a nutshell, Nathan is able to treat the breach of condition as a breach of warranty and
also entitled for damage

(Word count: 550 words)

3|Page
UCDF1405ACC INDIVIDUAL ASSIGNMENT ABUS026-4-2

3.0 References

Abdullah & Chua, N., 2003. Business Law in Malaysia. 1st ed. Shah Alam: Pusat Penerbitan
Universiti (UPENA).

Baksh, A. M. b. N. & Arjunan, K., 2005. Business Law in Malaysia. petaling jaya: LexisNexis.

Pheng, L. M. & Detta, I. J., 2009. Business Law. 2nd ed. Shah Alam: OXFORD university
press.

4|Page