Stinky Trainers Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Stinky Trainers - Essay ExampleThis authority that the peachys are owned by the seller (retailer in this grammatical case) and, therefore, the seller cannot deny ownership because he is not the manufacturer (Nike). The case of Rowland v Divall applies in this scenario. In this car was bought by the plaintiff from the defendant who was not the owner. It was held that the rightful owner could recover the car. The next consideration here will be whether the parents crap a right to arrogate as off the beaten track(predicate) as aim description is concerned. According to section s.13 (1), Where there is a contract for selling goods based on description, condition implies that the goods must correspond with the description. Therefore, this means that goods must agree with the description. The fact that Nike agreed that they had put a cotton canvas in place of artificial lining, implies that the good does not correspond to the description. Therefore, the parents have a right to clai m for replacement or refund. This scenario is equivalent to case of Beale v Taylor 1967. This concerned a car, which was made of a collection of several vehicles soldered together. The otherwise issue here can also be a consideration of whether the parents have a right as far as the quality of the home is concerned. The cases of goods which are usable, but do not meet specific expectations (they have some defect) are addressed in sections.14 (2). The parents have a right to claim for refund or replacement because the shoes are stinky (they are usable but have some defect) and cause embarrassment to the wearer. This is similar to the case law Rogers and another v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd and another 1988. During this case, it was held by the court of appeal that a Range Rover was not of satisfactory quality (un merchantable) even though it was fit to drive. This was because it had a number of defects. Similarly under the same section s.14(2) SOGA 1979, it is not mandatory that the goods be inspected during the time of buying (by the consumer), and that protection against defective good is allowed even if Matt had observed that a cotton canvas was put under the laces. Therefore, it can be argued that Matts parents can claim for rift of contract. The other part will deal with whether or not Matts parents have a right to argue any statements made by Nike Company when contacted by the Watchdog. For instance, one of the statements read In isolated instances when such a problem has occurred, the company recommends returning of the product to the retailer where the footwear is purchased to lease for a refund or replacement. This statement means that the company accepts to refund the cost of goods purchased if they are found to have a default or do not meet the standards specified. However, they have not mentioned anything concerning liability for any damage caused because of using the shoes. Finally, under rights we shall consider whether the parents have a right to discharge the contract or not. Section s.15 (Sale of Goods Act) implies that the buyer regardless of the magnitude of the damage can discharge a contract (whether big or small). The case law similar to this was that of Arcos Ltd. V E.A. Ronaasen & Son 1933 A. C. 470. This section, however, does not give consideration to liability in clear terms. Therefore, the parents have