I will pay for the following essay Consumer Protection Law in the UK. The essay is to be 13 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Download file to see previous

I will pay for the following essay Consumer Protection Law in the UK. The essay is to be 13 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

In SOGA 1979 14(2) as to quality the court found in Rogers v Parish ( Scarborough) Ltd [1987] QB 933 found that goods must be fit for the purposes for which supplied and failure to do so leaves them unmerchantable.6 In Jim's case he purchased the racquet at 250, a considerable amount for a tennis racquet. Further, because the severe surface damage to finish of the racquet and the fact its handle came off all within the first few weeks of normal use, the racquet as well was unmerchantable.

In Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 the Court of Appeal had to consider the meaning of 'in the course of a business' in the context of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s14(2), "where it limits the statutory implication of a term as to the quality of the goods to sales where sellers are acting 'in the course of a business'. ...

7 It will be contended that the broader meaning would also be more appropriate than that currently adopted in relation to the definition of 'deals as consumer' under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977." Further the guarantee, from the manufacturer, which came with the racquet stated that "We, Slammer Racquets plc, undertake that if, within twelve months of the date of the purchase, this racquet proves defective by reason only of faulty workmanship or materials, we will, at our option, repair or replace the same FREE OF ANY CHARGE for labour, materials or carriage on condition that the racquet has not been subjected to abnormal use. Exclusions: This guarantee does not cover damage resulting from improper use or neglect."

As it was shown the racquet was in breach of implied terms of the contract as outline above, the next step was to ascertain if in fact the breach was a condition or a warranty of the sale or the goods did not conform to the contract.

Jim purchased the Superslammer tennis racquet from Oldcastle Sports and Leisure (OSL) for 200 cash for the express purpose of learning to play tennis. He purchased the racquet based on the advertisement from the local newspaper. The advertisement read:

"Slammer Racquets PLC announce the arrival of the Superslammer Tennis Racquet

This is a fantastic new tennis racquet specially designed for beginners. Its unique anti-scratch finish means that however many times you knock it, scratch it, drop it, the scratches will not show. Your racquet will look as good as a new after many years of use.

Buy one now from your Slammer Stockist."

The statement coming from the manufacturer in the form of the advertisement was pre-contractual in nature. therefore, it is necessary to determine if it has contractual effect.