Consumer Law Undergraduate Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3500 words

Consumer Law Undergraduate - Case Study Example In instances of failure, CIF has determined that the buyer may reject tender of the documents, refuse acceptance of the goods and argue breach of contract.2 FOB terms are in concurrence with the stated, as is SoGA (1979). Sections 14, 2a and 14, 2b places equal emphasis on conformity. Insofar as the sale of goods contract references specified goods, the buyer is obligated to provide the seller with goods which confirmed to those referenced in the contract. 3Assuming that the goods are conforming, the seller is further responsible for making the necessary arrangements regarding the affreightment and insurance of the goods, the issuance of a commercial invoice and the tender of the relevant documents to the buyer within a reasonable timeframe, or as specified in the contract.4 Case law emphasises the liability of sellers in instances of proven non-conformity. In the matter of Slater v Finney (1996),5 the buyers claimed breach of implied condition of fitness, in accordance with SoGA(1979), Section 14, 3, maintaining that the shipping vessel which they purchased from the sellers did not satisfy the purpose for which they purchased it. ... In the matter of Soules Caf v PT Transap of Indonesia (1998) the court found that the buyer had the right to reject the documents since they were inconsistent with CIF terms pertaining to insurance and as a consequence of the seller's failure to perform his CIF obligations.7 The meaning of this is that the right to reject is immediately linked to the question of whether or not the seller fulfilled his obligations and not to whether the goods were damaged during the voyage or not. Therefore, even if the goods are damaged, Baxwell, must fulfil all of his obligations. The fact is that a significant percentage of the goods have been damaged, inhibiting Baxwell from exploiting them for the purpose for which he bought them. SoGA, Sections 15A and 15B, provides that the goods delivered should be in the type and condition which allow the buyer to satisfy the purpose of purchase.8 CIF terms additionally emphasise this right.9 Consequently, it is apparent that even though Sweet does not appear liable, as he had fulfilled his contractual obligations, Baxwell should not carry the financial burden potentially imposed upon him by the damage done to the goods. Assignment of liability for the damages, necessitates a review of the concepts of property and risk, as outlined by SoGA and CIF. The first consideration is the separation between passage of proprietorship and passage of risk. The CIF terms on which the sales of goods contract between Baxwell and Sweet is founded upon separates between the two. Property passes from the seller to the buyer upon the tender of the documents and the payment of the sums owed. Risk, however, and especially as delivery is at a distant port, does not