₦airaland Forum

1st and 3rd.

Pimpmaride:
For iyana ipaja

Yeah. Like that one in blue ooo. Kinda like that

Pimpmaride:
Surulere side

None dey NYSC camp side when make sense. I presently lodge for there.

How much is it?

Pimpmaride:
onyemechi33

Old school

Na aunties

Na smallie I need. Or very big booty matured woman.

Run am if you get any. I go do you well.

Pimpmaride:
Sent ooo

My speck nor dey there.

Yeah

Pimpmaride:
onyemechi33


Boss.. Oya make we relate for here.... Abi make i send u mail

Here make sense.

Where my market?

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.

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.

Lorenzop:
Tuface was the one man who could have achieved this feat but the coward chickened out, notice how all these celebrities are quiet?....if its BBnaija....those fools will full everywhere....

He simply weighed his options and discovered Nigeria is not a country worth dying for.

It was that simple

Ha! This is good news ooooo. Can you help me?


Mods
mndy44
Lalasticlala

Mrknowitall
Dominque