SOGA; Sellers Remedies and Buyers Remedies

Question 1

Clegg v Andersson

Answer 1

Retention of goods for more than a reasonable time: sections 35(4) and (5); if technical information asked for the reasonable time is delayed until the info is received

• Yacht was delivered with a seriously oversized keel, which made it unsatisfactory. This defect was apparent on delivery.
• The buyer asked the seller to provide with some technical information so that he could contact someone and decide to take on repairs.
• The seller took 6 months before he provided the information. 3 weeks after the information arrived, the buyer rejected the goods.
• It was held that rejection was on time.

Question 2

Fiat Auto v Connolly

Answer 2

Retention of goods for more than a reasonable time: sections 35(4) and (5); if constant talks regarding repairs

• The buyer who was a taxi driver continued to use the car for the next 9 months during which he covered 40k miles. Problems persisted and the buyer frequently took the car back to the seller to service it but the seller couldn’t find the problem.
• Finally after 9 months after delivery the buyer rejected the car and later on it was discovered what was wrong with it
• It was accepted that the car was of unsatisfactory quality both at the time of delivery and at the time of rejection
• The seller claimed that the buyer had accepted
• It was held that the buyer could reject the car. Throughout the 9 month period, the buyer was in regular contact regarding the faults in the car. His continued use did not amount to an act inconsistent with the sellers ownership

Question 3

Maple v Universal Furniture

Answer 3

Instalment contracts: section 31; can only terminate contract if the ratio of defective deliveries is high

• Contract for delivery of 100 tons of rugs. To be delivered 3 times a week and each delivery was to be separately paid for.
• Each load was to be 1.5 tons roughly 66 loads.
• First 15 loads were satisfactory then the 16th load was defective then 17 and 18 were satisfactory and at that stage the buyer purported to terminate the contract and to reject the goods.
• Court held that the buyer was not entitled to reject the goods and terminate the contract, the court established 1 test with 2 limbs here.
• First part was that the ratio of the defective goods to the contract quantity as a whole. 1.5/100 here.

Question 4

Victoria Laundry v Newman

Answer 4

Remoteness of damage: sections 51(2), 53(2), 54

• N was meant to deliver a boiler for the laundry company and the delivery was 5 months late. As
• As a result of not enough capacity VL lost a lucrative cleaning contract from the ministry of supply and they sued for the ordinary profit that it had forgone from not having the boiler on time.
• Court held that No only had to compensate for the ordinary loss of profits and not the extra ordinary loss of profit

Question 5

Ward v Bignall

Answer 5

Seller’s right of resale: section 48(3)

Contract of sale: 2 cars for £850
B pays deposit £25, buyer refused to pay the rest
Seller informed the buyer in writing that if the balance wasn’t paid by a date the seller would resell the car and the buyer failed to pay.
S sold one car 350, couldn’t sell the other one, so he brought a claim against the B for the balance of the purchase price 475 and advertising expenses 22.10
Seller could not recover any of the price since the buyer was no longer the owner of either of the cars, the ownership had reverted to the seller on the resale of the property