Page 166 - DMGT102_MERCANTILE_LAWS_I

Mercantile Laws-I

Notes Item 3 concerns the fitness of a product for a specific purpose. In one case, Griffi ths v

Conway Ltd., 1939 a coat purchased from the claimant that caused dermatitis to be suffered
by the buyer, the case was voided because the claimant had not told the seller about a
known skin condition. This harks back to whether or not Susan had experienced allergies
before when using certain types of paint. If she had done so then under law the onus would
have been on her to disclose this to the sales assistant so that this issue could be resolved
before the contract was completed. In regards to the masonry paint if the goods are specifi c,
the risk for use is passed on to the buyer, but the buyer can still claim breach under the
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Finally under item 4 of Paintplus’s terms of business agreement the company attempts to
refuse liability for the actions of a staff member. It can be argued in the case of the masonry
paint that as the staff member had made the recommendation of the type of paint based
on his own expertise on that topic (which can be implied by the sales assistant disclaiming

expertise over the internal paint) and that he was employed specifically to sell products
for which a limited amount of knowledge at least would be required; combined with the
concept that the terms of business agreement made by Paintplus itself is binding on the
staff, that they would not be able to dismiss liability for the masonry paint at least. The
defendant could argue however in the case of the bathroom interior paint that because the
sales assistant did specify that he was not an expert on that type of paint, that Susan did have
the opportunity to ask to be directed to another sales person who was better qualifi ed to
make the sale of interior paint. Likewise she could have asked to see the written description
of the product that she did buy, even if it was not included as part of the sale. However,
from Susan’s point of view she could argue that there was a reasonable expectation that
the sales assistant knew his job and would have referred Susan to another sales person if
he was not comfortable in recommending products that may or may not have met with
Susan’s expectations of the product or her needs related to the product.
Definitely it can be assumed that Susan had a reasonable expectation that the salesperson

she dealt with was trained on paint types and was able to offer applicable advice and
recommendations based on client needs because she did visit a specialist paint shop. This
same argument might not be applicable if she had visited a non-specialist shop for her
paint such as a second hand vendor.

The final part of this paper deals with the possible remedies available to Susan if her
breach of contract claim was successful. Section 55(1) of the Sale of Goods Act allows for
the negating or variance of a “right duty or liability” that is applicable to Susan in that she
can claim a remedy regardless of the fact that the contract was completed. Under general
terms however such remedy is often limited to a rejection of the goods (which is not strictly
applicable in this case but could support any claim for a refund of price paid); or a claim for
damages that is often limited simply to the difference between the price of goods that could
have met the buyers expectations and the actual goods that were purchased.
There is provision under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to award “specifi c performance”,
but this is a discretionary element and not often awarded by the courts . For example
s52(1) limits specific performance to “specific” or “ascertained” goods, but again this

is determined at the courts discretion relating to the specific case and elements thereof.

There is no guarantee even if the buyer was harmed or went through signifi cant hardship
because of the goods purchased that any claim for damages beyond the refund price of
the goods could be claimed. A second concern related to the laws surrounding remedies is
that there is a dissention as to whether or not the Sale of Goods Act 1979 can be considered
a codification of common law regarding sales law, or if the Sale of Goods Act could be

applied in addition to those remedies considered under common law.

One final point needs to be made in this case and it is in respect to the bathroom paint that
Susan purchased from Paintplus. Under section 53 if a buyer has accepted a lower price
Contd....

160 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY