Under the s.14(2) goods are required to be of satisfactory quality under s.14(2)d safety and s14(2) .e) durability.14(3) of the sales of goods act states that goods must be fit for purpose in relevance. Section 14(2) deals with instances where goods are usable but have some form of defect. Examples include Ltd Rogers and Another v Parish (Scarborough) and Another 1987 where the Court of Appeal held that a series of defects in a Range Rover made it unmerchantable (not of satisfactory quality) even though it was fit to drive. The relation to the case at hand the Tefal active fry worked but not to a satisfactory level of quality.
The law states under the sales of goods act 1979 ...view middle of the document...
When purchasing goods you have a right to expect that they should be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality: under the Sale of Goods Act, the retailer must either repair or replace the goods 'within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience'. If the seller does not forefill there obligation, you are entitled to bring a claim; A reduction on the purchase price, money back, minus an amount for the usage you've had of the goods (called 'recision').If the retailer refuses to repair the goods, nor replace them either, you may have the right to arrange for someone else to repair it, and then claim compensation from the retailer for the cost of doing this.
Assuming the shop where you brought the fryer from had a limiting liability(2001) clause, If we took this case to court we could get it overturn in relation to a similar case “Olley v. Marlborough Court Ltd (1949) 1 K.B. 532. Mr Olley visited the hotel belonging to the defendant. He had not made an in advance booking and upon arrival requested a room for the night. He signed the register and there was no mention at that stage of any other terms or conditions that might impact upon his stay at the hotel. During the course of his stay Mr Olley discovered that someone had broken into his room and stolen certain property including a fur coat. It subsequently became known that the defendant was negligent in relation to the security within the hotel. Nevertheless, the defendant sought to rely upon an exclusion clause that was placed in the bedroom the claimant stayed in. This stated that the hotel would not accept liability for lost or stolen items belonging to customers.”
The question was whether the exclusion clause that was displayed in the bedroom constituted a valid term of the contract. It was not disputed that there were all the required components to for the agreement i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration and intention, but that was not to say that all the terms the hotel sought to rely upon could actually be enforced against Mr Olley Denning applied similar reasoning in the case of Thornton v St[26ne Parking Ltd (1971) where it was held that the contract was in existence when.The exemption clause was introduced by a ticket, hence it was not part of the contract. As mentioned above, terms must be brought to the attention of the customer, consumer or party against whom they are trying to be enforced at the moment the contract was entered into. Otherwise it would allow parties free will to include other terms at a later stage, if the customer had known of such a term they might have decided not to enter into it in the first place.
The Court decided that the contract was entered into the moment Mr Olley arrived at reception and signed the register. Mr Olley was not given notice of this exclusion clause until he had already entered into the contract and therefore it was unenforceable against him; you were not produced the guarantee until you made the...