CRA 2015 Cases Flashcards
Rogers v Parish
S9 - goods must meet the standard of quality under statutory terms
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
s9 (3) (a) & s10 - there is no need to state the purpose of which goods are being used, where goods are being used for their normal use
Crowther v Shannon Motor Co
s9 (3) (a) & s10 - the car supplied was not fit for its purpose
Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd
S9 (4) - the seller brought the defect to the attention of the buyer, therefore the buyer could not assert any rights
Baldry v Marshall
S10 - goods must be fit for the purpose as specified
Griffith v Peter Conway
S10 (4) - if the buyer has a specific purpose for the good, they must be clear and say so to the trader. If they do not, there is no breach (as long as the good is fit for its normal purpose)
Re Moore v Landauer
S11 - goods must match their description, as the fruits in this case were not as described, so the buyer was entitled to reject the goods
Beale v Taylor
S11 - the product (car) did not match its description, amounting to a breach of s11
Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council
Section 31 - the clause was not incorporated into the contract since it was a mere receipt given after the contract was made
Thake v Maurice
S49 - the service (vasectomy) should have been performed with reasonable care and skill, as the surgeon breached their duty of care and fell below requisite standard when failing to warn about the risk of failure
Wilson v Best Travel
S49 - consumer’s claim under s49 was unsuccessful as the danger posed by the glass doors (that the plaintiff fell through sustaining injuries) wouldn’t cause reasonable holiday makers to decline to stay there
Phillips J:
‘The duty of care of a tour operator is likely to extend to checking that local safety regulations are complied with’
Hollie’s v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd
S62 -
