Law of Commerce
the sale of goods act imposes terms relating to goods matching samples or descriptions and meeting
standards of fitness quality,and title. explain the nature of these implied terms and their effects on the
parties. determines which are conditions and which are warranties and explain the effects of this
distinction.explain the effects of exemption clauses in the purchases agreement which states “that there
are no implied terms, and that the only terms are those contained in the agreement.
Any business entity selling goods to clients is required to consent to certain implied
responsibilities, as described by the contract. The consumer’s legal rights require that the product
being sold has not only a satisfactory description but one that is valuable to the consumer. As
such, contract agreement where consumers are disallowed to compensation following mislabeled
or defective products are seen to be unfair under the guidelines. Moreover, the usage of such
disclaimers is likely to mislead consumers with regards to their statutory rights. Diverse
descriptions can have the impact of disregarding liability for unacceptable goods. For instance,
the customer has the legal footing to seek redress in the event of defective goods especially if the
defect stems from misinformation of labels (Carter, 2013).
The Sale of Goods Act also gives the statutory mandate to the consumer to inspect the
goods and reject them on grounds of faultiness. Appending a signature on the delivery of goods
is not reason enough to warrant a success completion of the business deal, instead goods should
be tried out to ascertain the veracity of its authenticity. However, a legally binding contract on
both parties requires full compensation in the event that one party fails to live up to the
expectations of the contract. Statutes that restrict liability are subject to the same criticism as
those that omit it. Thus far, compensation would be awarded in the event of a loss or damage of
sorts that involved parties might have anticipated for that matter. Nonetheless, the supplier has a
legal standing to fight it off lawfully. Such a gesture cannot be seen to be unfair under the law
(Carter, 2013).
References
Carter, J.W (2013). ‘Party Autonomy and Statutory Regulation: Sale of Goods’.
Journal of Contract Law 2013
