Page 165 - DMGT102_MERCANTILE_LAWS_I

Unit 12: Law of Sales of Goods

before using it. The sales assistant said that there was nothing she need to be worried Notes
about, although a later investigation showed that the description that should have been on
the can did mention that “any person suffering from skin complaints or sensitivities should
refrain from using this product.” The case study notes do not indicate if Susan had prior
experience with being allergic to certain paints, and we can assume that she didn’t because
she was an experienced painter and decorator and would think to ask the sales assistant

specifically about this matter if she had experienced problems before.
Whether or not Susan could claim breach of contract in the case of the bathroom paint
would depend on whether the sales assistant could be considered liable because he did not
mention that the paint had a health warning notice, but as s14(2) of the Sales of Goods Act
1979 states that goods do not need to be examined at the point of sale (by the buyer) and
that a protection against faulty goods is allowable even if Susan had read the description of
the paint used in the bathroom before she bought it. Therefore it can be argued that in both
the masonry paint and the bathroom paint that Susan can claim breach of contract. In the
case of the masonry paint the case would be based on the “reasonable expectation” Susan
had that the paint would do what she required of it and in the case of the bathroom paint
Susan can claim damages because the terms of the sale between buyer and seller could not
be considered equitable in light of the illness she suffered as a result of the transaction and
the money she lost for the jobs she could not do for three weeks while she was recovering
from her allergic reaction.
The second part of this paper deals with whether or not Paintplus can argue any of the
statements made on the back of their receipts or on the door of their building as defence in
a breach of contract case. These statements are made as follows:

1. Paintplus agree to refund the purchase price of any products that fail to meet
satisfactory standards of quality or fail to comply with any written description applied
to the goods.

2. Subject to clause 1 above, Paintplus undertake no liability for damage however caused
by any product that fails to meet satisfactory standards of quality or fail to comply
with any written description applied to the goods.

3. Paintplus undertake no liability as to fitness for any specified purpose of the goods

sold.
4. Paintplus undertakes no liability for advice given by Paintplus employees.
Items one and two of this terms of business agreement indicate that the company is
prepared to refund the cost of the goods bought if they have proven to be defective in
some way, or that they do not meet the standards described on the tin. However, they
disclaim liability for any damage caused through the use of the goods. The Sale of Goods
Act 1979 s15 indicate that a buyer is entitled to discharge a contract regardless of how
slight the damage, or sellers breach may be but the same act does not consider liability in
such clear cut terms. Undoubtedly if the clauses described in Paintplus’s terms of business
are contrary to legislation in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, then the courts will take the side
of the applicable legislation as opposed to Paintplus’s own efforts to disclaim liability,
but whether this extends to forcing the company to pay out on damages as well as simple
refund of costs incurred through the original purchase will be examined later in this paper.
There is a precedent that relates to clauses in a contract that states if a clause in a contract
(such as those outlined by Paintplus on their receipt and on the door of their premises)

is ambiguous or vague then the courts will find for the innocent party and indeed some
legislation does set a precedent for the insistence on the payment of damages in some
cases.
Contd....

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 159