Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Amy is a successful businesswoman who keeps pedigree dogs as a hobby. 1
month ago, she went to happypets ltd, and established pet food supploer to
source for dog food. She saw a particular type of dog food there and after
inspecting it, she signed a contract with happypets ltd for 6 months’ supply of
that dog food to be delivered and paid for on a monthly basis. The contract
provides that any liability for defective products is limited to the contract price.
However when the first batch of food was delivered, it caused amy’s dogs to
become ill and they died withing 2 weeks of eating it. Amy is devastated as
her pedigree dogs are worth a lot of money and she had intended to enter dog
competitions where prize monies were substantial. Further, their deaths have
caused her much distress. She wants to cancel the contract WEF. She also
wants to claim against happypets ltd for all her finiancial losses and distress,
which are much more than the contract price of the food. Advise amy on her
rights arising under her contract with happypets ltd.
Issue - Sale of goods act.
Issue – under section 6.1 of the unfair contract terms act, any clause trying to
exclude liability for breach of section 12 of the sale of goods act Is totally
invalid. Parties to the contract – amy and happypets ltd. It’s a consumer sale.
She cannot recover losses for the pet dog dying. Remoteness of damages –
cannot claim. Apply test for remoteness. Damages would not be too remote if
they arose naturally. Such damages would have been incurred in the usual
course of things. Exceptional loss – to recover, happypets ltd would have to
be within the contemplation of the parties at the time of the contract.
Issue – cannot claim for distress exception is if the purpose were to provide
pleasure or peace of mind. Financial loss – depends on remoteness.
Claim dog – certain extent. Can claim for the value of the dog - damages.
Show value of the dog. E.g. dog acts as guard for the house.
Dog question 2 – april 2011
18k dog – misrepresentation
issue is misrepresentation. Define it. If statement is a term to the contract and
turns out to be false, it is misrepresentation. The statement of
misrepresentation made that induced the formation of the contract was “jack
has an excellent parentage and she is an adorable and healthy dog.” Also,
crystal was given papers to prove that the dog was a pure bred. However the
statement “excellent parentage….” Is a statement of existing fact. Amy was
negligent in stating that the dog was healthy, even though the dog was not.
The dogs health could be determined. Furthermore, Amy as a sales executive
should know more details about the dog. If the statement made was just one
of opinion, it cannot be considered as misrepresentation. Jacks papers to
prove that she is a pure bred could have induced her to buy the dog. 18k is a
huge sum of money. Purpose of buying the dog was for her son. The reasons
for buying the dog could have been because the dog was a pure bred. The
misrepresentation need not be the SOLE factor that determines the formation
of the contract. (P91) – Edgington v Firzmaurice. The statement that “the
chewing will stop as jack grows out of it” – it was made on the following day.
The statement comes after the purchase of the dog. It did not induce her to
buy the dog. Pure bred – false. Healthy dog – false. Fraudulent
misrepresentation was made (p92). If she relied on the papers to make the
purchase, it induced the formation of the contract. Crystal can rescind the
contract and would be able to recover the damages that she suffered – her
soft fabrics, her doctor fee.
April / may 2010
ADJ question
Case law: redgrave v hurd.
Misrepresentation induced the contract - negligent misrepresentation.
Remedy: rescind the contract. Return the car. Recover payment and sue for
damges. If fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, is it possible to rescind
the contract? If consumed the good e.g. wine. Can not rescind, can only claim
damages. The subject matter can be returned to the seller. Can sue for
damages.
2nd issue – whether shareholders can overwrite directors decision. Pg 258.
157a – directors have the power to manage the company. Case law:
automatic self cleansing filter p 258.
Director must have acted in the best interest of the company.
They cannot remove him. Since need to have more than 50 per cent of the
