One might be tempted to ask why this topic? Wherein be this litigator own self?

I was in court on one of those numerous Divine Providence decides you absorb from the the necessity to robe.

Same for the presiding Senior Magistrate, we were wearing suits, skit and tie, and we looked quite sharp in our appearance as litigators.

I was jejely on my own, when a young beautiful female counsel asked;

" Sir, my boss bought the head of a saxophone on way back from work on Friday ( don't ask me what it is called). The one in the church had developed fault , and he decided to buy another one to replace it.

He didn't go with the saxophone, he simply took the saxophone model and number. When he got to the musical equipment shop, e explain to the saxophone merchant what he wanted, and the saxophone merchant took the piece of paper and gave him a saxophone head.

He happyly went his way and slept well that night, basking under the euphoria he has sowed another seed in the Lord's vineyard.

But he was shocked to discover that the sexaphone head did not fit. They tried all they could, but it did not just fit. He was visibly pained they could not use the saxophone for choir practice.

It was quite late when they finished practice and he could not return it to the merchant. They had to manage during Sunday's service.

To be continued shortly.

Please continue o. I hope the shop owner will accept to replace the wrong part on Monday.


You are good in creating suspense, ehn!

[quote author=litigator post=91789997]

According to the young counsel, the boss stopped at the equipment shop on his way back from the office the following Monday.

This time, he had come to the understanding that Nigeria market was one wherein there were different versions of the same product.

He promptly sought the attention of the sales manager because it was getting late, and the traffic will not be friendly that evening. There had just been an accident. It was announced on the popular traffic radio.

Lagos is the only city in Nigeria and perhaps Africa that has a radio station dedicated to traffic matters. (Emphasis mine).

*****

He immediately complained to the sales manager, his subtle displeasure and how their failure to give him the accurate saxophone head occasioned him a considerable embarrassment in church.

It was his position that he had called his friend who is into the sales of musical pieces of equipment in the U.K. That the said friend explained to the sales attendant via WhatsApp video call.

He further posted that he was shocked when, despite all the explanation, the saxophone head didn't fit.

According to him, he was more troubled that his friend took his time to explain the nature of what he wanted.

The sales manager apologised but to his dismay, informed him that they wouldn't accept the returned saxophone head.

It was his case her principal did not return the saxophone head within the agreed time. That by their policy, goods bought in good condition cannot be changed after 48hrs of purchase.

He also posited that her principal, while trying to force the head into the saxophone, scratched the head.

He further informed her principal to further the returned head and buy a new head. And he will fix it for him free.

It was her position that the principal's pleas fell on deaf ears.

Well! Her principal decided to buy it elsewhere and sent them a demand notice the succeeding Monday.

And when they failed to accede to his demands, he promptly files this action.

I had to think for a moment because I was taken by surprise. The first question I asked my self was, whether the returned saxophone head was fit for purpose?

And whether or not a member of the defendant's sales team offered professional opinion?

And finally, whether or not the professional opinion was relied upon in the purchase, and to what extent?


Then what is the position of the law on these issues?

Let's take a look.

Brb.

Cc: Uboma

Technically, he was still within the buyer protection period. The item was purchased on Friday evening, I am sure that the shop does not open for business on a Sunday. Me thinks that the buyer returned the item within the 48 hours window.

Was these clause clearly stated on the receipt issued to the buyer? There has to be some loopholes to take advantage of.

Anyways, please continue o, the suspense no be here.

uboma:
Technically, he was still within the buyer protection period. The item was purchased on Friday evening, I am sure that the shop does not open for business on a Sunday. Me thinks that the buyer returned the item within the 48 hours window.

Was these clause clearly stated on the receipt issued to the buyer? There has to be some loopholes to take advantage of.

Anyways, please continue o, the suspense no be here.

It was clearly spelt out in the receipt but it was in fine print on the back.

The equipment store opens on Sunday from 12noom till 5pm. The principal bought the head on Friday evening and returned it on Monday evening.

According the the defence filed by the owners of the store, it was returned after 48hrs and in bad condition, as it was scratched.

The position of the law is clear on whose fault it is, and what ordinarily ought to have been done in the circumstance.

But the question is, what is the position of the law and did they know?

litigator:


It was clearly spelt out in the receipt but it was in fine print on the back.

The equipment store opens on Sunday from 12noom till 5pm. The principal bought the head on Friday evening and returned it on Monday evening.

According the the defence filed by the owners of the store, it was returned after 48hrs and in bad condition, as it was scratched.

The position of the law is clear on whose fault it is, and what ordinarily ought to have been done in the circumstance.

But the question is, what is the position of the law and did they know?

You have technically knocked me out,

Oya, what is the way forward?

cc: tot,

What do you think about the topic under discussion?

uboma:
cc: tot,

What do you think about the topic under discussion?

I no be lawyer oh but this seems related to Consumer rights.

https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Consumer-Protection/877838/The-Rights-Of-A-Consumer-Under-The-Federal-Competition-And-Consumer-Protection-Act-Of-Nigeria

Right to reject goods:
A consumer has the right to reject goods in the following instances:-
- Where the goods are intended to satisfy a particular purpose which is communicated to the supplier and upon delivery, the goods are not fit for that purpose.
- Where the consumer did not have the opportunity of examining the goods before purchase for example e-commerce and upon delivery the goods do not match the sample and/or description or they do not meet up to the quality and type envisaged in the sales agreement.
- Where the goods are defective and unsafe.
Where a consumer returns goods in any of these circumstances the consumer is entitled to a full refund of money paid for the goods.

The only issue though is that it seems the buyer is the one who made a wrong assumption, and secondly the item was returned in a 'damaged' condition, so not sure how that would impact the factors above.

uboma:



You have technically knocked me out,

Oya, what is the way forward?

I am not a boxer jare. How do you mean?

tot:


I no be lawyer oh but this seems related to Consumer rights.

https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Consumer-Protection/877838/The-Rights-Of-A-Consumer-Under-The-Federal-Competition-And-Consumer-Protection-Act-Of-Nigeria

Right to reject goods:
A consumer has the right to reject goods in the following instances:-
- Where the goods are intended to satisfy a particular purpose which is communicated to the supplier and upon delivery, the goods are not fit for that purpose.
- Where the consumer did not have the opportunity of examining the goods before purchase for example e-commerce and upon delivery the goods do not match the sample and/or description or they do not meet up to the quality and type envisaged in the sales agreement.
- Where the goods are defective and unsafe.
Where a consumer returns goods in any of these circumstances the consumer is entitled to a full refund of money paid for the goods.

The only issue though is that it seems the buyer is the one who made a wrong assumption, and secondly the item was returned in a 'damaged' condition, so not sure how that would impact the factors above.

You did a good job as the analysis, thanks for your contribution.

Let's wait to read how it pans out eventually, I only hope that the buyer gets refunded.

How is your day going?

litigator:


I am not a boxer jare. How do you mean?

Hahahaha.

I was hoping that the buyer was within the 48 hours buyer's protection but you have proved me wrong.

So please continue, we are eager to find out how it ends....

How is your day going?

uboma:



You did a good job as the analysis, thanks for your contribution.

Let's wait to read how it pans out eventually, I only hope that the buyer gets refunded.

How is your day going?

Would be interesting to see how the situation turns out. Thanks, day going well, trust yours is too.

tot:


Would be interesting to see how the situation turns out. Thanks, day going well, trust yours is too.

Yes, thank you.

tot:


I no be lawyer oh but this seems related to Consumer rights.

https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Consumer-Protection/877838/The-Rights-Of-A-Consumer-Under-The-Federal-Competition-And-Consumer-Protection-Act-Of-Nigeria

Right to reject goods:
A consumer has the right to reject goods in the following instances:-
- Where the goods are intended to satisfy a particular purpose which is communicated to the supplier and upon delivery, the goods are not fit for that purpose.
- Where the consumer did not have the opportunity of examining the goods before purchase for example e-commerce and upon delivery the goods do not match the sample and/or description or they do not meet up to the quality and type envisaged in the sales agreement.
- Where the goods are defective and unsafe.
Where a consumer returns goods in any of these circumstances the consumer is entitled to a full refund of money paid for the goods.

The only issue though is that it seems the buyer is the one who made a wrong assumption, and secondly the item was returned in a 'damaged' condition, so not sure how that would impact the factors above.

I agree with your submissions. You have voracious appetite for teaching.

But it's not so straight forward with the rules of interpretation and the place of evidence. Sometimes the law is blind.

litigator:



I agree with your submissions. You have voracious appetite for teaching.

But it's not so straight forward with the rules of interpretation and the place of evidence. Sometimes the law is blind.

that's a new one

[quote author=litigator post=92034253][/quote]


Let us consider the position of the law in circumstances wherein a buyer relies on the professional opinion of the seller in making a purchase.


Does a buyer have a right actionable in court, when it is discovered that the goods bought relying on the said expert opinion, are not fit for the purpose it was bought?

By the express provision of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act of 1893, the law is clear that the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought.

However, for a buyer to take advantage of this apt position of the law, he must comply with the provision of Section 14(a) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act was put to test in the English case of Christopher Hill Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited (1972) AC.441.

In this case, the seller made it clear to the buyer that he knew nothing about the nutritional requirements of Mink. He simply agreed to manufacture feed for the buyer's animals in accordance with the formula supplied by the buyer.

Despite the above position, the Court held the seller liable under section 14(a) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was because even though the buyer had relied on his own judgement as to the suitability of the compound for the mink food, he relied on the seller to select and acquire good quality ingredients of the type set out in the formula, and to combine them satisfactorily.

The court also held that even though the seller made no warranties as to the formula, but he was deemed to have warranted the fitness of the ingredients supplied.

Also, in the Nigeria case of Nigeria Bottling Company Limited v. Constance Obi Ngonadi (1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739, the buyer bought a kerosine fridge known as Evercold Refrigerator, relying on the expert opinion of the seller.

A few weeks after the purchase, the fridge developed faults, which was promptly reported to the seller. And the company immediately sent an expert technician to inspect and repair it.

After the repairs, the technician praised the workability of the fridge and presupposed that the buyer got one of the very best products in the market.

The fridge kept developing faults, and the seller kept repairing it until it exploded and injured the buyer.

The buyer sued the seller and got judgement at the high court and the court of appeal. The seller further appealed to the supreme court and the very learned justices of the apex court, while dismissing the seller's appeal held thus;

I have had a preview in draft of the judgment just read by my learned brother. Oputa, J.S.C., and I am wholly in agreement with it.

There is clearly no merit in this appeal, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the state of the law.

Section 15(a) of the Bendel State Sale of Goods Law, Cap. 150, Vol. VI, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, carries identical words as S.14(1) of the Sale' of Goods Act 1893 which in England was later slightly modified by S.14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. The said section 15(a) reads:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Law and of any written law in that behalf there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows-

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller and particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:

Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose:"

Numerous decisions show that under that section the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. An example of its application is the case of Bristol Tramways, etc. Carriage Co. Ltd. v. Fiat Motors Ltd. (1910) 2 KB. 831 in which buses ordered were known to be required for heavy passenger work in Bristol, a hilly city, and they proved unsuitable. The seller was held liable. Equally, the seller of tractors not fit for road construction work for which they were bought was condemned in damages in Ashford Shire Council v. Dependable Motors Pry. Ltd. (1961) AC. 336.

All these are elementary. But nothing appears to be elementary in this country where it is often the unhappy lot of consumers to be inflicted with shoddy and unmerchantable goods by some pretentious manufacturers, entrepreneurs, shady middlemen and unprincipled retailers whose avowed interest seems only, and always, to be to maximize their profits leaving honesty a discounted and shattered commodity.

The respondent in this appeal has been One of those victim consumers whose modest investment with the appellant in an Evercold Refrigerator has netted her the unexpected return of serious personal injuries for which she suffered severely. She more than deserves to have the N30,000.00 and N435.50 awarded her as general and special damages respectively, by the High Court and confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

While commending the respondent in her tenacity in pursuing her claim in the Courts below, one would trust that others of the citizenry who have suffered, or are suffering, from purchases of unmerchantable goods would readily have recourse to the Courts for a remedy.

I would also, as done by my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C., dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, with N300.00 costs to the respondent.



From the position of the law as aforesaid, what do you think?

Do you firmly believe the principal has an actionable claim?

Let's hear from you


olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
Uboma
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll

tot:


I no be lawyer oh but this seems related to Consumer rights.

https://www.mondaq.com/Nigeria/Consumer-Protection/877838/The-Rights-Of-A-Consumer-Under-The-Federal-Competition-And-Consumer-Protection-Act-Of-Nigeria

Right to reject goods:
A consumer has the right to reject goods in the following instances:-
- Where the goods are intended to satisfy a particular purpose which is communicated to the supplier and upon delivery, the goods are not fit for that purpose.
- Where the consumer did not have the opportunity of examining the goods before purchase for example e-commerce and upon delivery the goods do not match the sample and/or description or they do not meet up to the quality and type envisaged in the sales agreement.
- Where the goods are defective and unsafe.
Where a consumer returns goods in any of these circumstances the consumer is entitled to a full refund of money paid for the goods.

The only issue though is that it seems the buyer is the one who made a wrong assumption, and secondly the item was returned in a 'damaged' condition, so not sure how that would impact the factors above.

CC: Icocop101

@Litigator this new post pass me o.

This one is what I will call the rights of a consumer versus the quality of goods sold by the supplier.

There are 3 variables here in this equation.

Goods can't talk and so don't have rights.

It is very important that as a supplier, businessman or salesman, it is important to understand the nature and quality of goods and services you sell or offer.

I know we are not there yet but it is best right now for businesses to start controlling the quality of their goods and services to avoid rejection of low quality goods and services.

After Control, we can now talk of protecting ourselves (because I am also a supplier), from ridiculous individuals who will abuse the opportunity they have of exercising their rights to reject goods.

Hope I didn't type gibberish?

BlongTrendies:
@Litigator this new post pass me o.

This one is what I will call the rights of a consumer versus the quality of goods sold by the supplier.

There are 3 variables here in this equation.

Goods can't talk and so don't have rights.

It is very important that as a supplier, businessman or salesman, it is important to understand the nature and quality of goods and services you sell or offer.

I know we are not there yet but it is best right now for businesses to start controlling the quality of their goods and services to avoid rejection of low quality goods and services.

After Control, we can now talk of protecting ourselves (because I am also a supplier), from ridiculous individuals who will abuse the opportunity they have of exercising their rights to reject goods.

Hope I didn't type gibberish?

I quite agree with you that the aforesaid position of the law does not favour e-commerce operators, especially those selling low quality products.

But can they do?

I will be right back, so we can address this and ensure discuss the possibility of eliminating or reducing debts and outright fraud from e-commerce business.


How can a bulk seller ensure goods supplied are paid for, as and when due?

Can can a car dealer residing abroad ensure that cars shipped to sellers in Nigeria are paid for?

We have heard of unfortunate circumstances wherein some unscrupulous elements refuse to pay for goods supplied, even when there is sufficient evidence to show that the good were received in good condition, and they have been sold.

A clear example is that of a Nairalander who gave his car to a dealer to sell. The dealer sod his car and refused to remit the proceeds.

What can he do? How can such person ensure he continues business with entertaining the fear that such ugly and ungodly affliction never arises for a second time?

uthor=litigator post=92506527]


Let us consider the position of the law in circumstances wherein a buyer relies on the professional opinion of the seller in making a purchase.


Does a buyer have a right actionable in court, when it is discovered that the goods bought relying on the said expert opinion, are not fit for the purpose it was bought?

By the express provision of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act of 1893, the law is clear that the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought.

However, for a buyer to take advantage of this apt position of the law, he must comply with the provision of Section 14(a) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act was put to test in the English case of Christopher Hill Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited (1972) AC.441.

In this case, the seller made it clear to the buyer that he knew nothing about the nutritional requirements of Mink. He simply agreed to manufacture feed for the buyer's animals in accordance with the formula supplied by the buyer.

Despite the above position, the Court held the seller liable under section 14(a) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was because even though the buyer had relied on his own judgement as to the suitability of the compound for the mink food, he relied on the seller to select and acquire good quality ingredients of the type set out in the formula, and to combine them satisfactorily.

The court also held that even though the seller made no warranties as to the formula, but he was deemed to have warranted the fitness of the ingredients supplied.

Also, in the Nigeria case of Nigeria Bottling Company Limited v. Constance Obi Ngonadi (1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739, the buyer bought a kerosine fridge known as Evercold Refrigerator, relying on the expert opinion of the seller.

A few weeks after the purchase, the fridge developed faults, which was promptly reported to the seller. And the company immediately sent an expert technician to inspect and repair it.

After the repairs, the technician praised the workability of the fridge and presupposed that the buyer got one of the very best products in the market.

The fridge kept developing faults, and the seller kept repairing it until it exploded and injured the buyer.

The buyer sued the seller and got judgement at the high court and the court of appeal. The seller further appealed to the supreme court and the very learned justices of the apex court, while dismissing the seller's appeal held thus;

I have had a preview in draft of the judgment just read by my learned brother. Oputa, J.S.C., and I am wholly in agreement with it.

There is clearly no merit in this appeal, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the state of the law.

Section 15(a) of the Bendel State Sale of Goods Law, Cap. 150, Vol. VI, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, carries identical words as S.14(1) of the Sale' of Goods Act 1893 which in England was later slightly modified by S.14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. The said section 15(a) reads:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Law and of any written law in that behalf there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows-

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller and particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:

Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose:"

Numerous decisions show that under that section the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. An example of its application is the case of Bristol Tramways, etc. Carriage Co. Ltd. v. Fiat Motors Ltd. (1910) 2 KB. 831 in which buses ordered were known to be required for heavy passenger work in Bristol, a hilly city, and they proved unsuitable. The seller was held liable. Equally, the seller of tractors not fit for road construction work for which they were bought was condemned in damages in Ashford Shire Council v. Dependable Motors Pry. Ltd. (1961) AC. 336.

All these are elementary. But nothing appears to be elementary in this country where it is often the unhappy lot of consumers to be inflicted with shoddy and unmerchantable goods by some pretentious manufacturers, entrepreneurs, shady middlemen and unprincipled retailers whose avowed interest seems only, and always, to be to maximize their profits leaving honesty a discounted and shattered commodity.

The respondent in this appeal has been One of those victim consumers whose modest investment with the appellant in an Evercold Refrigerator has netted her the unexpected return of serious personal injuries for which she suffered severely. She more than deserves to have the N30,000.00 and N435.50 awarded her as general and special damages respectively, by the High Court and confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

While commending the respondent in her tenacity in pursuing her claim in the Courts below, one would trust that others of the citizenry who have suffered, or are suffering, from purchases of unmerchantable goods would readily have recourse to the Courts for a remedy.

I would also, as done by my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C., dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, with N300.00 costs to the respondent.



From the position of the law as aforesaid, what do you think?

Do you firmly believe the principal has an actionable claim?

Let's hear from you


olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
Uboma
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll


[/quote]


Oga d law. This time apply to spare parts and online market?

I go like know.

uthor=litigator post=92506527]


Let us consider the position of the law in circumstances wherein a buyer relies on the professional opinion of the seller in making a purchase.


Does a buyer have a right actionable in court, when it is discovered that the goods bought relying on the said expert opinion, are not fit for the purpose it was bought?

By the express provision of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act of 1893, the law is clear that the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought.

However, for a buyer to take advantage of this apt position of the law, he must comply with the provision of Section 14(a) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act was put to test in the English case of Christopher Hill Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited (1972) AC.441.

In this case, the seller made it clear to the buyer that he knew nothing about the nutritional requirements of Mink. He simply agreed to manufacture feed for the buyer's animals in accordance with the formula supplied by the buyer.

Despite the above position, the Court held the seller liable under section 14(a) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was because even though the buyer had relied on his own judgement as to the suitability of the compound for the mink food, he relied on the seller to select and acquire good quality ingredients of the type set out in the formula, and to combine them satisfactorily.

The court also held that even though the seller made no warranties as to the formula, but he was deemed to have warranted the fitness of the ingredients supplied.

Also, in the Nigeria case of Nigeria Bottling Company Limited v. Constance Obi Ngonadi (1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739, the buyer bought a kerosine fridge known as Evercold Refrigerator, relying on the expert opinion of the seller.

A few weeks after the purchase, the fridge developed faults, which was promptly reported to the seller. And the company immediately sent an expert technician to inspect and repair it.

After the repairs, the technician praised the workability of the fridge and presupposed that the buyer got one of the very best products in the market.

The fridge kept developing faults, and the seller kept repairing it until it exploded and injured the buyer.

The buyer sued the seller and got judgement at the high court and the court of appeal. The seller further appealed to the supreme court and the very learned justices of the apex court, while dismissing the seller's appeal held thus;

I have had a preview in draft of the judgment just read by my learned brother. Oputa, J.S.C., and I am wholly in agreement with it.

There is clearly no merit in this appeal, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the state of the law.

Section 15(a) of the Bendel State Sale of Goods Law, Cap. 150, Vol. VI, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, carries identical words as S.14(1) of the Sale' of Goods Act 1893 which in England was later slightly modified by S.14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. The said section 15(a) reads:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Law and of any written law in that behalf there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows-

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller and particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:

Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose:"

Numerous decisions show that under that section the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. An example of its application is the case of Bristol Tramways, etc. Carriage Co. Ltd. v. Fiat Motors Ltd. (1910) 2 KB. 831 in which buses ordered were known to be required for heavy passenger work in Bristol, a hilly city, and they proved unsuitable. The seller was held liable. Equally, the seller of tractors not fit for road construction work for which they were bought was condemned in damages in Ashford Shire Council v. Dependable Motors Pry. Ltd. (1961) AC. 336.

All these are elementary. But nothing appears to be elementary in this country where it is often the unhappy lot of consumers to be inflicted with shoddy and unmerchantable goods by some pretentious manufacturers, entrepreneurs, shady middlemen and unprincipled retailers whose avowed interest seems only, and always, to be to maximize their profits leaving honesty a discounted and shattered commodity.

The respondent in this appeal has been One of those victim consumers whose modest investment with the appellant in an Evercold Refrigerator has netted her the unexpected return of serious personal injuries for which she suffered severely. She more than deserves to have the N30,000.00 and N435.50 awarded her as general and special damages respectively, by the High Court and confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

While commending the respondent in her tenacity in pursuing her claim in the Courts below, one would trust that others of the citizenry who have suffered, or are suffering, from purchases of unmerchantable goods would readily have recourse to the Courts for a remedy.

I would also, as done by my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C., dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, with N300.00 costs to the respondent.



From the position of the law as aforesaid, what do you think?

Do you firmly believe the principal has an actionable claim?

Let's hear from you


olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
Uboma
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll


[/quote]


Oga d law. This tin apply to spare parts and online market?

I go like know.

litigator:



Let us consider the position of the law in circumstances wherein a buyer relies on the professional opinion of the seller in making a purchase.


Does a buyer have a right actionable in court, when it is discovered that the goods bought relying on the said expert opinion, are not fit for the purpose it was bought?

By the express provision of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act of 1893, the law is clear that the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought.

However, for a buyer to take advantage of this apt position of the law, he must comply with the provision of Section 14(a) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act was put to test in the English case of Christopher Hill Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited (1972) AC.441.

In this case, the seller made it clear to the buyer that he knew nothing about the nutritional requirements of Mink. He simply agreed to manufacture feed for the buyer's animals in accordance with the formula supplied by the buyer.

Despite the above position, the Court held the seller liable under section 14(a) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was because even though the buyer had relied on his own judgement as to the suitability of the compound for the mink food, he relied on the seller to select and acquire good quality ingredients of the type set out in the formula, and to combine them satisfactorily.

The court also held that even though the seller made no warranties as to the formula, but he was deemed to have warranted the fitness of the ingredients supplied.

Also, in the Nigeria case of Nigeria Bottling Company Limited v. Constance Obi Ngonadi (1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739, the buyer bought a kerosine fridge known as Evercold Refrigerator, relying on the expert opinion of the seller.

A few weeks after the purchase, the fridge developed faults, which was promptly reported to the seller. And the company immediately sent an expert technician to inspect and repair it.

After the repairs, the technician praised the workability of the fridge and presupposed that the buyer got one of the very best products in the market.

The fridge kept developing faults, and the seller kept repairing it until it exploded and injured the buyer.

The buyer sued the seller and got judgement at the high court and the court of appeal. The seller further appealed to the supreme court and the very learned justices of the apex court, while dismissing the seller's appeal held thus;

I have had a preview in draft of the judgment just read by my learned brother. Oputa, J.S.C., and I am wholly in agreement with it.

There is clearly no merit in this appeal, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the state of the law.

Section 15(a) of the Bendel State Sale of Goods Law, Cap. 150, Vol. VI, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, carries identical words as S.14(1) of the Sale' of Goods Act 1893 which in England was later slightly modified by S.14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. The said section 15(a) reads:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Law and of any written law in that behalf there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows-

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller and particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:

Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose:"

Numerous decisions show that under that section the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. An example of its application is the case of Bristol Tramways, etc. Carriage Co. Ltd. v. Fiat Motors Ltd. (1910) 2 KB. 831 in which buses ordered were known to be required for heavy passenger work in Bristol, a hilly city, and they proved unsuitable. The seller was held liable. Equally, the seller of tractors not fit for road construction work for which they were bought was condemned in damages in Ashford Shire Council v. Dependable Motors Pry. Ltd. (1961) AC. 336.

All these are elementary. But nothing appears to be elementary in this country where it is often the unhappy lot of consumers to be inflicted with shoddy and unmerchantable goods by some pretentious manufacturers, entrepreneurs, shady middlemen and unprincipled retailers whose avowed interest seems only, and always, to be to maximize their profits leaving honesty a discounted and shattered commodity.

The respondent in this appeal has been One of those victim consumers whose modest investment with the appellant in an Evercold Refrigerator has netted her the unexpected return of serious personal injuries for which she suffered severely. She more than deserves to have the N30,000.00 and N435.50 awarded her as general and special damages respectively, by the High Court and confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

While commending the respondent in her tenacity in pursuing her claim in the Courts below, one would trust that others of the citizenry who have suffered, or are suffering, from purchases of unmerchantable goods would readily have recourse to the Courts for a remedy.

I would also, as done by my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C., dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, with N300.00 costs to the respondent.



From the position of the law as aforesaid, what do you think?

Do you firmly believe the principal has an actionable claim?

Let's hear from you


olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
Uboma
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll

From the position of the law and business issues anf morality, the seller should be held accountable for a bad good or service
....
If a seller offers a bad product, it'll affect his or her reputation in the market which means that customers will avoid his or her products....

And as a seller, there's a trust that the buyer puts in you....., By giving a substandard product, you've betrayed that trust.....even if it's poison that I bought.....so, the seller should be held accountable for damages that occurs to the buyer BUT THE BUYER MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN. WHEREIN THE BUYER DISREGARDS THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, THE CUSTOMER IS GUILTY OF SELF DAMAGE


This is the little I know

litigator:



Let us consider the position of the law in circumstances wherein a buyer relies on the professional opinion of the seller in making a purchase.


Does a buyer have a right actionable in court, when it is discovered that the goods bought relying on the said expert opinion, are not fit for the purpose it was bought?

By the express provision of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act of 1893, the law is clear that the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought.

However, for a buyer to take advantage of this apt position of the law, he must comply with the provision of Section 14(a) of the Act.

Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act was put to test in the English case of Christopher Hill Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited (1972) AC.441.

In this case, the seller made it clear to the buyer that he knew nothing about the nutritional requirements of Mink. He simply agreed to manufacture feed for the buyer's animals in accordance with the formula supplied by the buyer.

Despite the above position, the Court held the seller liable under section 14(a) of the Sales of Goods Act. This was because even though the buyer had relied on his own judgement as to the suitability of the compound for the mink food, he relied on the seller to select and acquire good quality ingredients of the type set out in the formula, and to combine them satisfactorily.

The court also held that even though the seller made no warranties as to the formula, but he was deemed to have warranted the fitness of the ingredients supplied.

Also, in the Nigeria case of Nigeria Bottling Company Limited v. Constance Obi Ngonadi (1985) NWLR (Pt.4) 739, the buyer bought a kerosine fridge known as Evercold Refrigerator, relying on the expert opinion of the seller.

A few weeks after the purchase, the fridge developed faults, which was promptly reported to the seller. And the company immediately sent an expert technician to inspect and repair it.

After the repairs, the technician praised the workability of the fridge and presupposed that the buyer got one of the very best products in the market.

The fridge kept developing faults, and the seller kept repairing it until it exploded and injured the buyer.

The buyer sued the seller and got judgement at the high court and the court of appeal. The seller further appealed to the supreme court and the very learned justices of the apex court, while dismissing the seller's appeal held thus;

I have had a preview in draft of the judgment just read by my learned brother. Oputa, J.S.C., and I am wholly in agreement with it.

There is clearly no merit in this appeal, having regard to the concurrent findings of fact of the two Courts below and the state of the law.

Section 15(a) of the Bendel State Sale of Goods Law, Cap. 150, Vol. VI, Laws of Bendel State of Nigeria, carries identical words as S.14(1) of the Sale' of Goods Act 1893 which in England was later slightly modified by S.14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. The said section 15(a) reads:

"15. Subject to the provisions of this Law and of any written law in that behalf there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows-

(a) where the buyer, expressly or by implication makes known to the seller and particular purpose for which the goods are required so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose:

Provided that in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose:"

Numerous decisions show that under that section the duty of the seller is to supply goods reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are bought. An example of its application is the case of Bristol Tramways, etc. Carriage Co. Ltd. v. Fiat Motors Ltd. (1910) 2 KB. 831 in which buses ordered were known to be required for heavy passenger work in Bristol, a hilly city, and they proved unsuitable. The seller was held liable. Equally, the seller of tractors not fit for road construction work for which they were bought was condemned in damages in Ashford Shire Council v. Dependable Motors Pry. Ltd. (1961) AC. 336.

All these are elementary. But nothing appears to be elementary in this country where it is often the unhappy lot of consumers to be inflicted with shoddy and unmerchantable goods by some pretentious manufacturers, entrepreneurs, shady middlemen and unprincipled retailers whose avowed interest seems only, and always, to be to maximize their profits leaving honesty a discounted and shattered commodity.

The respondent in this appeal has been One of those victim consumers whose modest investment with the appellant in an Evercold Refrigerator has netted her the unexpected return of serious personal injuries for which she suffered severely. She more than deserves to have the N30,000.00 and N435.50 awarded her as general and special damages respectively, by the High Court and confirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeal.

While commending the respondent in her tenacity in pursuing her claim in the Courts below, one would trust that others of the citizenry who have suffered, or are suffering, from purchases of unmerchantable goods would readily have recourse to the Courts for a remedy.

I would also, as done by my learned brother, Oputa, J.S.C., dismiss this appeal, and hereby dismiss it, with N300.00 costs to the respondent.



From the position of the law as aforesaid, what do you think?

Do you firmly believe the principal has an actionable claim?

Let's hear from you


olaric
onyemechi33
BlongTrendies
Uboma
jman77
Kingssmith
TommyAnthem
Blessedkingg
DaniDani
ifedola28
purity2all
tot
Xavfra
FaAbokiWithSuit
Hunchogee
Liebin
Chinkos99
Dtruthspeaker
Hopez456
samuelpeters
TeeBabss
sexylassie2
udy4real
Razzness
ceejeck
Volkswagen90
Chuky7
Askme2020
Gabaleve
sapientia
DoubleEngine007
Carlyscales
uwemconcept
saintvc
Tadeknkeepcalm
Vello
Greatzeus
humilitypays
Klass99
Skyfornia
youngsahito
jman77
RedPhoenix
missjekyll

From the position of the law and business issues anf morality, the seller should be held accountable for a bad good or service
....
If a seller offers a bad product, it'll affect his or her reputation in the market which means that customers will avoid his or her products....

And as a seller, there's a trust that the buyer puts in you....., By giving a substandard product, you've betrayed that trust.....even if it's poison that I bought.....so, the seller should be held accountable for damages that occurs to the buyer BUT THE BUYER MUST FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN. WHEREIN THE BUYER DISREGARDS THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN, THE CUSTOMER IS GUILTY OF SELF DAMAGE


This is the little I know

tot:


that's a new one

If you're lucky it'll be blind in your case

Xavfra:



If you're lucky it'll be blind in your case

Isn't that injustice...?

tot:


Isn't that injustice...?

It is.
.. that's why as a lawyer you should watch out for it...

Xavfra:


It is.
.. that's why as a lawyer you should watch out for it...

Got it.

tot:


Got it.

I appreciate

Have a great day

Xavfra:


I appreciate

Have a great day

Thanks, you too

Xavfra:



If you're lucky it'll be blind in your case

[quote author=tot post=92515033]

Isn't that injustice...?[/quote

Not really. The court does not see issues of sentiments business or morality.

She only sees shreds of evidence which has to pass through her hear, and will also be weighed on a scale of the preponderance evidence.

The question under this circumstance is always " did the seller have the opportunity of knowing better, considering his/her wealth of experience?"

I suppose where the literal rule of interpretation is won't avail much, recourse is always made to the mischief rule.

To me, it seems the mischief rule was what the court applied in Christopher Hills Limited v. Ashington Piggeries Limited's case.


From the facts of the case , it was clear that the seller made full disclosure of his weakness. It didn't know the nutritional value of Mink.

But the court held for the buyer, and the seller was held liable.

Do you think that was justice for the seller?