ISSUE # 1 :WHETER THERE WAS CONTRACT OF SALE FORMED

BETWEEN SUSILA AND SALES PERSON

Relevant
Law

Section 4 of Sales Of Goods Act (SOGA)

Section 5 SOGA

Current
Situation

Section 4 (1) 3 Main criteria fulfilled.

Goods : luxury, deep filled duck-down pillow
Monetary consideration: she purchased it, understood that monetary
consideration was present.
Transfer of goods: she slept on it, hence the transfer took place from the sales
person to Susila.

S 4(2) and S4 (3)- transaction of sale between Susila and the seller was absolute
contract of sale.
Section 5
- offer and acceptance between Susila and seller
- Immediate payment and delivery took place
Conclusion A valid absolute contract of sale as defined under S4 and S5 of SOGA was
formed when Susila purchased the pillow from the seller.

ISSUE #2: WHETER THIS CONTRACT OF SALE STIPULATED UNDER CONDITIONS OR

WARRANTY IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETER SUSILA ENTITLE FOR DAMAGES
AND/OR CAN REPUDIATE THE CONTRACT IF THERE WAS A BREACH
Relevant
Law

Section 12 of SOGA
Stipulation in contract of sale : Condition or warranty

Current
Situation
-stipulation essential to this contact is condition because the main purpose of
and
the contract is the purchase of the pillow for her insomnia disorder.
Conclusion
- breach in this transaction will entitle Susila for damages and may repudiate the
contract as well. (if theres a breach only)
What is stipulation?
- To demand that something to be part of the contract (representations made by the parties of
the contract). So when a person makes a contract, he can stipulate that a certain conditions
must be met.

ISSUE #3: WHETER THERE IS A BREACH OF CONTRACT WHEN SUSILA SUFFERS SKIN
ALLERGIES CAUSED BY THE PILLOW SOLD BY THE SELLER
ISSUE #4: WHETER SUSILA HAS THE DUTY TO INFORM THE SALES PERSON OF HER
ALLERGIES BEFORE HER PURCHASE
Relevant
Law

General Rule : Doctrine of CAVEAT EMPTOR (let the buyer beware).

Exception : Section 16 (1) (a) and (b)
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd formed skin dermatitis, failed to sue for breach due
to faiure to inform sensitive skin, coat fit for normal purpose.

Current
Situation

(a) The pillow reasonably fit for the purpose of helping with insomnia.
(b) The pillow is of merchantable quality.
Griffits v Peter Conway- similar situation.
Susila suffered skin allergies and failed to inform that to seller. She cant sue him
for breach of implied condition for the pillow that fits its purpose.

Conclusion -

suffered skin allergy, due to the usage of the pillow, which is not bought to cure
any skin condition, hence the seller did not breach S16 (1) (a) and (b).

has the duty to inform about her skin condition before purchase

should have been careful while purchasing the pillow by taking into account her
skin condition. Her negligence in doing so cannot be held against the seller.

DISCUSSIONS/ ARGUMENTS

#1 If she mentioned about her skin conditions before purchase?

-seller to breach the implied condition
-she relied on his skill and judgment to suggest her that pillow knowing her
allergies
#2: Can she claim for the cost of the pillow?
- If regarding skin allergy- No
- If regarding insomnia Yes
#3: If the seller informed Susila, that the pillow may cause skin allegy for
sensitive skin?
-Susila, will not be able to claim damages from the Seller.

(b) ISSUE #1: WHETER THE SELLER OF CATAPULT IS LIABLE FOR THE EYE
INJURY
Relevant
Law

General Rule : Doctrine of CAVEAT EMPTOR (let the buyer beware).

Exception: Section 16 (1) (b)
Godley v. Perry- boy bough catapult, broke and injured his eyes. Seller held liable
for damages.

Current
Situation

Susila bought the catapult under the stipulated conditions that it is of

merchantable quality, but it broke and caused injury to her son.
Seller, the implied condition that the catapult is of merchantable quality, being nonmerchantable quality.
Godley v Perry, where similar situation occurred and the plaintiffs sued the seller
and recovered general damages, which is highly possible in Susilas situation.

Conclusion can hold for breach of implied conditions of fitness and merchantability, provided
that she did not perform inspection on the catapult.
Room for Argument?
in Godley case, it was a child who bought it and the possibility for the child to check the
goods are not there. However, in Susilas situation, it was her who bought the catapult
for her son, there are high possibility she could have examined the catapult for any
defect before purchase.

(c) ISSUE #1: WHETER THERE WAS CONTRACT OF SALE BY DESCRIPTION WHEN
SUSILA PURCHASED THE SHOES
ISSUE #2: WHETER THERE WAS BREACH IN THAT CONTRACT OF SALE BY
DESCRIPTION
Relevant
Law

Section 15 of SOGA sale by Description

Beale v. Taylor
- Car advertised Herald Convertible, White, 1961
- rear halve of the car was part of a 1961 Herald Convertible, the front part was
part of an earlier model.
- held, could sue because even though the buyer can try the good, defects
may be concealed from the buyer.

Current
Sale by Description
Situation
- purchased the shoes claimed to have gel-filled soles based on an
and
advertisement.
Conclusion
The shoes fell apart, discovered no gel filled soles in the shoes.
- no correspondence between shoes and its description of having gel-filled
soles.
Similar Beale v Taylor, the non-existent gel filled sole are concealed from the
buyer Susila even though the shoes she bought looked perfectly fine at the time of
purchase.

DISCUSSION: WHETHER S16 (1) (B) IS BE APPLICABLE IN THIS SITUATION?

As per s16 (1) (b), Can an advertisement treated as a description from a manufacturer or
producer?
S16 mentioned the word seller but S15 silent .
S15 failed tomention on how the description is delivered to the buyer.
In David Jones v Willis
- wanted a shoe that is comfortable because he is suffering from bunion.
- bought shoes as per description by salesperson
- heels of the shoes than broke causing injury.
- Held, shoes bought by description and there was a breach of implied condition of
merchantable quality. (in line with S16(1)(b))
In Susilas case
- bought the shoes based on description on an advertisement
- did not correspondent with the said description ( in line with S15)
- the shoes had fell apart in the first use. Merchantable quality applicable?
Assumptions: assuming even if a seller is present physically he would have referred to the
advertisement and suggested those shoes to her. Hence, buying by description here may
lead to breach of implied condition under S16 (1) (b)