Law with Tort of Negligence Essay Example for Free

Law with tort of Negligence EssayThe application is downstairs s1 sale of goods act in that location is a contract engineer between me and Mandela where I swallow agreement, intention and consideration to buy the arm chasten from Mandela, therefrom contract is gradation. Besides that, armchair is considered goods and there is consideration of money where I paid Mandela for $1500 and at last there is also transfer of property where I paid $1500 for the armchair from his let on. Hence, in conclusion the armchair that I purchased is under Sale of Goods Act. Another issue in the headspring is whether we can insist Tyson (owner) set me for $500 that I (buyer) spent on fixing the chair and every return the chair and insist upon a refund, specific totallyy under consumer guarantees s 55 fitness for calculate? In the question the law would be s 55 there is an implied guarantee that where the buyer stockly or by implication makes roll in the hayn to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods ar required, and shows that judgment and seller, the goods moldiness be reasonable fit for purpose, based on the face Grant v Australia plain Mills and Wallis v Russell.In the question Tyson has break off s 55 fitness for purpose where he is selling piece of furniture in his Classic Antiques Store but the furniture that he sell are fragile. In s 55 there is certain condition we must satisfy. beginning(a), buyer must impart or the seller has known the buyer particular purpose for the goods they required. Second, has the buyer relied on the sellers acquirement or judgment? Third, are the goods of a description which it is in the course of the sellers business to supply? And lastly, has the buyer ordered the goods under their switch name so that it is clear there is no reliance on the skill of judgment of the seller? ground on the condition above, I had satisfied all the condition, where I express to Mandela (salesperson) that I want to use the arm chair as my new mark furniture. On the other hand, Mandela stated that It is a solid old thing. I mount on it all the time. Hence, I relied on his judgment and bought the armchair. Moreover, Tyson business are selling furnitures where the armchair is considered as a furniture, thus it is also satisfied goods are descriptive under the course of the sellers business. Lastly, although I didnt buy the armchair based on the trade name, but I rely on the skill or judgment by Mandela.In conclusion, the seller has breach all the criteria in s 55 and under s 261 consumer have the right to choose either a refund or rehabilitation of the products if supplier fail to fulfill with consumer guarantee, as a result I can insist Tyson compensate me for $500 for fixing the chair and also can return the chair and insist upon a refund. Based on the question, the issues would be based on Mandelas statement that It is a solid old thing. I hinge upon on it all the time. You will be used it safely for many years. Will it become consumers to believe that it can be used as furniture and can be used safely for many years, specifically under consumer guarantees s 18 Misleading or Deceptive consider? In the question, the law would be s 18 where A corporation shall not engage in impart that is guide or tawdry or is likely to mislead or deceive, based on the case of Eveready Australia Pty Ltd v Gillette Australia Pty Ltd ,Henjo Investment Pty Ltd amp Ors v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd and taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd. In the application, there are 3 elements which must fulfill breach of s 18.First of all, Mandela engage in conduct with me that the armchair is safe and can be used for many years to a greater extent which imply a false representation of the fact to me where the armchair was in reality fragile. Furthermore, I purchase the armchair under trade and commerce whereby under mutual communication, and I negotiated 30minutes orally with Mandela (salesp erson) to sell me the armchair with $1500. Moreover, Mandela conduct was misleading or deceptive where he stated he sits on the armchair all the time where he actually doesnt sit on it and the fact that the chair was actually fragile.Refer to Taco Bell to determine whether the conduct is misleading or deceptive that there are certain criteria to justify whether they are mislead or deceived. First, the conduct is based on me which is justified the targeted by the conduct of the defendant. The time I was in Tysons shop, Mandela forms an chimerical conclusion to me, that the armchair is safe and can be used as furniture where it was not the fact. Hence, proves the conduct by Mandela skilled of being misleading or deceptive. In conclusion, Mandela has breach the 3 elements in s 18 of ACL for misleading and deceptive. Based on the question, Tyson is the owner of the shop (Principle), Mandela is the store manager and also salesperson (Agent) and I am the buyer (Third Party). In the quest ion the issue is whether or not Mandela had dictum to sell the chair at that price under Agency scope of an agents authority? Law is express authority where the agreement is created between agent and principal in the written or oral form based on the case John McCann amp Co v Pow.In addition, apparent authority is also applied here where the principle, either by words or conduct, may leads to third fellowship mistaken to believe that an agent has authority to act on the principles behalf, based on the case Tooth amp Co v Laws. Moreover, duty of agent where the agent must follow the legitimate and reasonable instruction of the principle and be honest in performing the job is set by the principle, based on the case Bertram, Armstrong amp Co v Godfray.Hence in the application, Mandela has breach express authority under agency where he doesnt follow the oral agreement by Tyson to sell the armchair for at least $3500 and he sold the armchair for me with $1500. Besides that, under appa rent authority, Tyson either by words or conduct leads me to believe that Mandela has authority to contract on their behalf and I couldnt know Tyson has instructed Mandela to sell the armchair for at least $3500.Based on the question, the issue is whether I can sue Tyson under tort of negligence and claim compensation? The law tort of negligence was recognized in the case Donoghue v Stevenson where the plaintiff must establish that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of bang, the defendant breached that duty, and lastly the plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the breach in tort of negligence. Hence in the application, Tyson (defendant) has owed a duty of care to me (plaintiff) based on the test and relationship.All the stake in the shop must be reasonable foreseeable, however the armchair was not reasonable foreseeable where the armchair looked nice but actually was fragile, even though Tyson does put a sign on the wall of the shop mention that enchant do not sit on the chair-fragile- considered sold if damaged but as a furniture shop, customers might need to try or test the quality of the products. In addition, there is a penetrable relationship where Tyson hires Mandela as a manager and salesperson to control the shop, and I was reliant on Mandela, thus Mandela has the duty to protect my safety in the shop.Hence, Tyson has breach duty of care under magnitude of the bump of likelihood of the occurrence where the armchair was not covered or blocked to prevent customer sitting on it which same case as Bolton v Stone. Thus, he had fail to exercise the required standard of care due to the armchair being fragile and I sit on it, the chair had collapsed under my weight and has been injure when I fell to the floor. Hence, I have suffered damage due to the chair collapsed and I fell to the floor.However, Tyson have defenses to negligence under voluntary assumption of the endangerment where the plaintiff had full and absolute knowledge of the risk wher e defendant had actually put the sign on the wall that said please do not sit on the chair- fragile- considered sold if damaged. Besides that, the plaintiff had sufficient appreciation of that particular risk where plaintiff had saw the sign on the wall but ignore the sign. Lastly, there was voluntarily bankers acceptance of that risk as the plaintiff knew the chair were fragile but doesnt care and sit on the chair. Hence, at defendant point of view plaintiff should bear the risk. In conclusion, as I am the plaintiff I can sue Tyson under tort of negligence and claim for compensation, because Tyson should need to be more aware and cover or block the fragile furniture instead of just putting a sign on the wall due to customer might ignore the sign and sit on the chair.