Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Need an argumentative essay on Analysis of Nike shoes. Needs to be 8 pages. Please no plagiarism.Download file to see previous pages... either orally introduced or written. In the following three scen
Need an argumentative essay on Analysis of Nike shoes. Needs to be 8 pages. Please no plagiarism.
Download file to see previous pages...either orally introduced or written. In the following three scenarios, the terms may be inferred from a contract. (i) In fact- where the contract consists of no specific term but the signatories to contract must have in mind to be included in the same (ii) By law – the provisions contained in Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA). (iii) BY customs followed by the contracting parties. Thus , there exists an implied term of any sale of product contract between a consumer and a commercial seller or between two commercial sellers themselves , that as per S.14 of SOGA , products sold are of reasonably suitable for their purpose and of satisfactory quality and as per S.1 of SOGA, products adhere with any available sample or any description. It is to be observed that a seller will be held accountable for infringement of these implicit terms. (Popat 2010: 319). Under SOGA, if a defective product has been supplied, then it would result in the basic infringement of contract and hence, the buyer can either seek damages or repayment of purchase price or to reject the product itself. As per s.14 of SOGA, the product should of satisfactory quality. ...
In “Camell Laird &. Co v The Manganese Bronze and Brass Co [1934] 402,” it was held that for supply of defective products, the seller was accountable under S.14 (1) of SOGA. (Popat 2010:391). In “Abouzaid v Mothercare (UK) Ltd”, claim for defective product was successful as the Court of Appeal held that product supplied was below the standard of safety of the public and hence was entitled to claim damages under CPA. However, in this case, the claim under tort of negligence was failed because it was not rationally predictable that the product would have caused such a harm or injury. (Rush &. Ottley 2006:291). A consumer may bring a claim against supply of a defective product against the seller who sold the goods and in normal parlance, the seller of the products will claim from the manufacturer or the distributor. A single consumer can initiate such a claim individually and where a large number of consumers are affected, then group claim can be made. Normally, as there is no direct contractual remedy is available against the manufacturer for a consumer as there is no direct privity of contract between a consumer and the distributor or the manufacturer. Unless, if there is a contract of guarantee issued by the manufacturer, the consumer has no direct contractual remedy from a manufacturer or a distributor. If a manufacturer gives a guarantee, then it will be considered as a separate contract and will be implemented against the manufacturer. Further, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 regulate any such guarantees. (Popat 2010:319).
