Commercial Law
indicate the nature of hotls claim, an express an opinion as to the outcome of the case.
The issue in question is related to the sale of goods law since the ownership has been
passed from the owner to the buyer. The confusion at the library display made Holt to believe
that the book he is buying is in good shape. According to Tepper (2011), the sale of goods law
requires that the seller should pass goods of good quality to the buyer so that the buyer can get
quality for his money. In this case, Holt believed that he was purchasing a book in good quality
in accordance to the price quotation. Since he has been given the book he never intended to buy,
Holt has an actionable claim against MacPherson. In his claim, Holt can argue that the property
COMMERCIAL LAW 2
passed to him by the seller was not corresponding with the description he gave for the property
in accordance with the sale of good law. In addition, the sale of goods law demands that the
property passed from the seller to the buyer should be fit for purpose and this was not in this case
of Holt and MacPherson (Tepper, 2011). MacPherson is liable under the sale of goods law which
requires that the quality of goods passed to the buyer should correspond to the sample that was
put in the library display. In this regard, Holt ought to have been given a reasonable opportunity
to compare what he wanted to buy and what he has been given as the actual product to assess
whether the goods have any defects. This accord the buyer an opportunity not to be duped into
buying goods that does not reflect the amount of money paid on them. Therefore, MacPherson is
liable for passing goods which are not of the right quantity to the buyer.
Reference
Tepper, P. (2011). The Law of Contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code. Cengage Learning;
2 edition
