Implied Terms Flashcards
Where are the implied terms set out under statute law ?
Under statute law implied terms for the supply of goods and services are set out for in the Consumer Rights Act ( CRA ) 2015.
What does Section 9 state ?
Section 9 states a right that the quality of the goods is satisfactory, and includes appearance, safety and fitness for the usual purpose.
How does the right not apply ?
The right doesn’t apply where a defect has been drawn to the consumer’s attention or the consumer has inspected goods.
What does Section 10 state ?
Section 10 states a right that the goods are fit for a particular purpose made known by the consumer to a trader. This can be expressed or implied.
What does Section 11 state ?
Section 11 states a right that the goods supplied will match the description, including an implied description, for example when put on display.
What are the remedies for goods ?
A right to full rejection ( refund ) within 30 days of delivery under S.20 and S.22, a partial rejection under S.21 and a right to repair or replacement under S.23 if they decide not to exercise S.20.
What if the consumer doesn’t want to exercise S.23 ?
If the consumer doesn’t want to exercise S.23 ( or has, and is not satisfied ), they can ask for a price reduction or be given the final right to reject under S.24. Any refund issued will be reduced by a deduction for use.
What are one of the remedies for services ?
A right to repeat performance under S.55, which must happen within a reasonable time and without significant inconvenience to the customer - the trader must also bear any costs in doing so.
What is the other remedy for services ?
A price reduction under S.56 which will only be an option if repeat performance is impossible, or repeat performance has been requested, and the trader doesn’t perform it within a reasonable time.
How can terms also be implied ?
Terms may also be implied through common law.
What is the business efficacy test for implying terms into a contract + cases ?
Under the business efficacy test ( THE MOORCOCK, MARKS AND SPENCER v BNP ) the court will imply a term into a contract if the term is necessary to make the contract effective, and if the parties to the contract would’ve thought about it, would’ve agreed that the suggested term was going to be in the contract.
What is the officious bystander test for implying terms into a contract + case ?
The officious bystander test ( SHELL v LOSTOCK GARAGES ) will imply a term into a contract on the basis that if both parties were asked by an officious ( interfering ) bystander, they would’ve agreed that such a term was needed.
How can clauses also be implied + cases ?
Clauses may also be implied through the course of dealings ( HILLAS v ARCOS ) if its use is regular and consistent , even if it comes after acceptance ( MCCUTCHEON v MACBRYNE ).
