BUSINESS LAW (Tutorial 8) Suggested Answer:
1. For apply apply Sale of of Goods Act, 1957, 1957, it must be a goods. According According to Section Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, goods as meaning ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims (suing another person for a debt or for any other person) and money, and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract con tract of sale.’ Therefore, land is excluded from the Sale of Goods Act, 1957. For apply Sale of Goods Act, 1957, it must be a contract of sale. According to Section 4(1) Sale of goods Act, 1957, contract of sale as a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer to property in goods to the bu yer for a price. Therefore, a sale occurs when the ownership or property in goods passes or its transferred to the buyer. buyer. (a) When Ahmad agrees to exchange his pen for Thomas’s watch, is it a goods? Here, Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied because b oth pen and watch is a movable property. However, However, Section 4(1) Sale of goods Act, 1957 does not satisfied because barter agreement exchange something without price, that is exchange the pen and watch without price. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 cannot apply. (b) When Jenny agrees to sell sell her house to George for RM 200000, is it a goods? Here, Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957 doesn’t applied because house is not a movable property. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 cannot ca nnot apply. (c) When Frank agrees to buy shares in ABC Sdn Bhd from Sam for RM10000, is it a goods? Here, Section 2 Sale of Goods Good s Act, 1957 is applied because shares is a movable property. And Section 4(1) Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied because t. e price of shares is RM10000. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied. (d) When Tan Tan wants to buy a TV set from from Fella Design for RM2000 to be paid over a twelve months period by equal installments, is it a goo ds? Here, Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied because TV set is a movable movab le property. property. And Section 4(1) Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied because the price of TV set is RM2000. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 applied. 3. For the the Sale of Goods Goods Act, 1957 to to applied, applied, it must must be a goods. Goods Goods is defined defined in Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, as ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims (suing another person for a debt or for any other person) and money, and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.’ Therefore, land is excluded from the Sale of Goods Act, 1957. Here, woolen clothes is a movable property. Therefore, Sale of Goods
Act, 1957 can applied. For the Sale of Goods Act, 1957 to applied, it must be a contract of sale. Contract of sale is defined in Section 4(1) Sale of goods g oods Act, 1957 as a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer to property in goods to the buyer for a price. Therefore, a sale occurs when the ownership or property in goods passes or its transferred to the buyer. Is there a contract of sale there? There is a contract of sale because Vain Vain already purchased the woolen clothes from Carrie’s Carrie’s shop. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 can applied. According to Section 16(1)(a) Sale of Goods Act, 1957, circumstances where there is an implied condition that goods are reasonably fit for a particular purpose. To applied this section, there must be satisfied 5 conditions. If any one of this condition do not satisfied, cannot sue under this section. First, sale must be in the ordinary course of business. Here, the sale occurred in the ordinary course of business because Vain Vain purchased the woolen clothes from Carrie’s shop which specializes in the winter wear. Second, the buyer must expressly inform the seller of the special purpose. If the buyer bu yer do not inform the seller, the buyer cannot sue the seller. Here, Vain Vain do not expressly inform Carrie she have sensitive skin. Therefore, Vain Vain cannot sue Carrie for any implied condition c ondition as to fitness for particular purpose – Section 16(1)(a) Sale of Goods Act, 1957.
4. For the Sale Sale of Goods Act, 1957 to applied, it must be a goods. Goods is defined in Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, as ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims (suing another person for a debt or for any other person) and money, and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.’ Therefore, land is excluded from the Sale of Goods Act, 1957. Here, chicken feed is a movable property. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 can applied. For the Sale of Goods Act, 1957 to applied, it must be a contract of sale. Contract of sale is defined in Section 4(1) Sale of goods g oods Act, 1957 as a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer to property in goods to the buyer for a price. Therefore, a sale occurs when the ownership or property in goods passes or its transferred to the buyer. Is there a contract of sale there? There is a contract of sale? There a contract of sale because Ali ordered some chicken feed from Sam. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 can applied. According to Section 15 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, implied condition that in a sale of goods by description, the goods must correspond with the description. Here, the chicken feed described as being free from antibiotics as ordered by Ali. However, the chicken feed did not fit the description. d escription. Therefore, Ali can sue Sam for his losses under this section.
5. For the Sale Sale of Goods Act, 1957 to applied, it must be a goods. Goods is defined in Section 2 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, as ‘every kind of movable property other than actionable claims (suing another person for a debt or for any other person) and money, and includes stock and shares, growing crops, grass, and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.’ Therefore, land is excluded from the Sale of Goods Act, 1957. Here, the machine is a movable goods. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 can applied. For the Sale of Goods Act, 1957 to applied, it must be a contract of sale. Contract of sale is defined in Section 4(1) Sale of goods g oods Act, 1957 as a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer to property in goods to the buyer for a price. Therefore, a sale occurs when the ownership or property in goods passes or its transferred to the buyer. Is there a contract of sale there? There is a contract of sale? There a contract of sale because Kenny purchased the machine. Therefore, Sale of Goods Act, 1957 can applied. According to Section 16(1)(b) Sale of Goods Act, 1957, goods must be of merchantable quality. quality. Proviso to this section provides that the subsection does not apply where the buyer has examined the goods as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed. According to Section 32 Consumer Protection Act, 1999, where goods are supplied to a consumer there shall be implied guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality. quality. According to Section 15 Sale of Goods Act, 1957, implied condition that in a sale of goods by description, the goods must correspond with the description. Here, Kenny purchased the machine by relying on the description in the brochure. Although Kenny had already try it out the machine, he still cannot know whether the machine correspond with the description de scription or not. According to Beale v. Taylor Taylor (1967), the seller of a car advertised it as a “Herald Convertible, White, 1961”. The buyer viewed the car before agree to buy it. Later he discovered that while the rear halve of the car was part of a 1961 Herald Convertible, the front part was part of an earlier model. It was held that he could sue under Section 15 of Sale of Goods Act, 1957 because even though the buyer had seen the goods defeat may be concealed from the buyer. In conclusion, Kenny cannot sue under Section 16(1)(b) Sale of Goods Act, 1957. He can only sue under Section 15 Sale of Goods Act, 1957. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------***According to Miss Parimaladevi, question 2 would not be coming in exam.
