The identification of Harry's rights Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

The identification of Harry's rights - Essay Example At this point, it should be noted that there is no problem as of the capacity of Harry to proceed to the purchase since he is not minor nor he suffers from a mental illness (s.3 Sales of Goods Act of 1979, MacLeod 2002). When ordering the table, Harry mentions to the sales assistant that he wants a table similar to that of the poster in the shop’s window; it is implied that the bed ordered should be of the same size, technical characteristics and colour as the bed illustrated in the specific poster (s.13(1) SOGA, Curtis v Ghemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co Ltd [1951], Andrews v Hopkinson [1957]); otherwise an issue of misrepresentation about quality would exist (Cranston 2000, p.148) In accordance with the case study, that bed was grey; therefore, Harry expected to receive a similar bed when making the order (s.13 (1) SOGA). At the same time, Harry picked a chair from the shop’s catalogue and made the relevant order. Again, the item ordered, the chair is defined through a photo of the item presented to the customer. This means that Harry did not have the chance to examine, closely, the size or the other qualities of the items ordered (Law Commission, 2009, p.9). He was only able to define their required characteristics through photographs. It should be noted that Harry did not explain to the seller the purpose of the goods, so the court could decide that the seller is not liable for the fact that the products are not fit for purpose (Reddy & Johnson 2011, p.22, Jewson Ltd v Leanne Teresa Boyhan [2004], BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011]). At this point, the following issues should be discussed: a) whether the items were accepted (s32 SOGA), and b) whether the items met the requirements of the law in regard to not fit for purpose products. The time framework available to Harry in order to make his claims should be also examined. In accordance with the Sales of goods Act 1979, the time framework for the buyer to develop claims against the seller in regard to the items sold is 28 days from the date of the sale (as such term is commonly added in contracts in order to define the ‘reasonable’ time during which the right of the buyer to reject the goods sold is retained, s35(4) SOGA). Harry’s rights, as derived from the specific sale, are active. Harry can approach the seller with a claim for faulty products within the period of 28 days from the date of the sale, meaning the date when the sale was completed, i.e. when the buyer accepted the goods (Chen-Wishart 2007, p.595). The period of 28 days had not passed; it begins from the day that Harry checked the goods, in the context that the seller has to give to the buyer a reasonable time for checking the goods and Harry was absent which means he could not check the goods (s.35 SOGA, Law Commission, 2009, p.10). Also, the English courts have held that the silence of the buyer cannot be considered as acceptance of the goods sold (Felthouse v B indley [1862], Hannah Blumenthal [1983]). However, in order for the above claims to be valid, it needs to be proved that the products sold are not fit for purpose. The law, the Sales of goods Act 1979 (SOGA), sets the criteria under which a product is considered as not fit for purpose: ‘a) it does not match the description (s.13, SOGA), b) is not of satisfactory quality (s14.2 SOGA) and c)