Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Current
Situation
Conclusion A valid absolute contract of sale as defined under S4 and S5 of SOGA was
formed when Susila purchased the pillow from the seller.
Section 12 of SOGA
Stipulation in contract of sale : Condition or warranty
Current
Situation
-stipulation essential to this contact is condition because the main purpose of
and
the contract is the purchase of the pillow for her insomnia disorder.
Conclusion
- breach in this transaction will entitle Susila for damages and may repudiate the
contract as well. (if theres a breach only)
What is stipulation?
- To demand that something to be part of the contract (representations made by the parties of
the contract). So when a person makes a contract, he can stipulate that a certain conditions
must be met.
ISSUE #3: WHETER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT WHEN SUSILA SUFFERS SKIN
ALLERGIES CAUSED BY THE PILLOW SOLD BY THE SELLER
ISSUE #4: WHETER SUSILA HAS THE DUTY TO INFORM THE SALES PERSON OF HER
ALLERGIES BEFORE HER PURCHASE
Relevant
Law
Current
Situation
(a) The pillow reasonably fit for the purpose of helping with insomnia.
(b) The pillow is of merchantable quality.
Griffits v Peter Conway- similar situation.
Susila suffered skin allergies and failed to inform that to seller. She cant sue him
for breach of implied condition for the pillow that fits its purpose.
Conclusion -
suffered skin allergy, due to the usage of the pillow, which is not bought to cure
any skin condition, hence the seller did not breach S16 (1) (a) and (b).
has the duty to inform about her skin condition before purchase
should have been careful while purchasing the pillow by taking into account her
skin condition. Her negligence in doing so cannot be held against the seller.
DISCUSSIONS/ ARGUMENTS
(b) ISSUE #1: WHETER THE SELLER OF CATAPULT IS LIABLE FOR THE EYE
INJURY
Relevant
Law
Current
Situation
Conclusion can hold for breach of implied conditions of fitness and merchantability, provided
that she did not perform inspection on the catapult.
Room for Argument?
in Godley case, it was a child who bought it and the possibility for the child to check the
goods are not there. However, in Susilas situation, it was her who bought the catapult
for her son, there are high possibility she could have examined the catapult for any
defect before purchase.
(c) ISSUE #1: WHETER THERE WAS CONTRACT OF SALE BY DESCRIPTION WHEN
SUSILA PURCHASED THE SHOES
ISSUE #2: WHETER THERE WAS BREACH IN THAT CONTRACT OF SALE BY
DESCRIPTION
Relevant
Law
Current
Sale by Description
Situation
- purchased the shoes claimed to have gel-filled soles based on an
and
advertisement.
Conclusion
The shoes fell apart, discovered no gel filled soles in the shoes.
- no correspondence between shoes and its description of having gel-filled
soles.
Similar Beale v Taylor, the non-existent gel filled sole are concealed from the
buyer Susila even though the shoes she bought looked perfectly fine at the time of
purchase.
Mini case
Issue #1 : Whether Contract of sale exist between Susila and Sam
Relevant
Law
Section 4
Section 5(1) of SOGA 1957
Current
Situation
and
Conclusion
The goods, monetary consideration (the price) and transfer of property should
take place.
The goods: Sword
Monetary consideration:agreed to pay RM21,000
Transfer of goods: will take from Susila in two days (takes place is future)
In accordance with subsection 2, 3 and 4 it can be concluded that
For contract of sale, there should be immediately (absolute), Sam said he will pick
up in two days, resulting in future time (conditional)
Hence, at this point of time until the , it is still an Agreement to Sell. Not a Contract
of Sale because Sam have not paid Susila.
Self pick up offered by Sam is merely offering to buy them, and the sale is
incomplete until the money is paid.