Assignment 2

COURSE CODE: BA240

SUBJECT NAME: BUSINESS LAW

SUBJECT CODE: LAW 416

SOLE OF GOODS

FACULTY: FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT UiTM CAWANGAN PERLIS

KAMPUS ARAU

PREPARED BY: 1. SYAHIRAH YUMNI BINTI MOHAMAD YUSOFF (2021865182)

2. NOR AYUNI IDAYU BINTI HALIM (2021865168)
3. NURFARAH HANIS BINTI AHMAD NADZIR (2021870608)
4. ARIFF DANIEL BIN AZMI (2021822866)
5. NUR ZULAIKHA ERISYA BINTI MOHD FAUZI (2021620454)

SUBMITTED TO: DR ZETI ZURYANI MOHD ZAKUAN

SUBMISSION 17/01/2022
DATE:
 Assignment 2

Sale of Goods - 20 %

Instructions:

1. In a group of 4, please answer the following question.

2. Your answer must be type written.
3. Your answer must be in pdf format.
4. Please upload your answer in google classroom under the respective topic.
5. Due date is on the 17th of January 2022.

Hashim, a keen gardener with a large orchid visited Nicegrow Ent. to buy fertilizer. In the past,
he had always used a top brand, but was hoping to find something cheaper. He looked at several
types of fertiliser on display, noted the widely differing prices, and read the promotional leaflets.
Some fertilisers required application to the roots, others to leaves. He then sought the advice of
sales assistant Yazid about the products on sale. The sales assistant recommended that Hashim
should buy “Healthygrow”. Hashim relied on the opinion given by Yazid and purchased
“Healthygrow”. After using the product for few days, his plant died. Hashim was upset with the
situation. He wanted to sue the seller, Nicegrow Ent.

Advise Hashim.

(20 marks)
Introduction : Whether Hashim can sue Nicegrow Ent. or not

Legal Principle:

1. Section 4(1) Sales of Goods Act 1957: (SoGA) states that “A contract of sale is a contract
whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in the goods to the buyer for
a price. There may be a contract of sale between one part owners and another.
2. Section 2 Sales of Goods Act : It means “ Every kind of movable property other than
actionable claims and money ; and includes stock and shares, growing crops,grass, and
things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale
or under the contract of sale”. It means any goods except for money, land, (immovable
property) and actionable claims.
3. Section 20 Sales of Goods Act, for specific Goods, property in the goods pass to the
buyer when contract is made.
4. Section 18 Sales of Goods Act, property in the goods will pass to the buyer when the
goods are ascertained.
5. Section 5 (2) Sales of Goods Act, it provides that contract maybe made in writing, by
word of mouth, or partly in writing and partly by word of mouth. It may even be implied
from conduct of the parties. Basically, a contract of sale is made by an offer to buy or
sell goods for a price and acceptance of such offer.
6. Section 14(b) Sales Of Goods Act provides that the buyer should enjoy the possession of
the goods without any disturbance
7. Section 15 Sales Of Goods Act provides that goods should correspond to the description.
Sales of unascertained goods, sale from a catalogue or from a mail order is considered as
sale by description.
8. Eg: Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. (1936) : In this case it involved a man who
bought underwear after he was satisfied with the description on the packaging. The man
suffers from severe dermatitis after wearing the underwear.
9. Section 16(1) Sales Of Goods Act follows the common law rule in the phrase caveat
emptor, which says that there is no implied condition as to fitness for particular purpose.
The law expects the buyer to exercise care in making purchases. If he does not then he
must bear the consequences.
10. Section 16(1)(a) : provides that implied conditions as to fitness for particular purpose
exist if the 5 conditions are fulfilled.

a) Disclosure of purpose - buyer make known to the seller the purpose of buying the
goods. Where the goods have only one purpose, then no need to disclose the purpose
which the goods are required. Eg. Griffith v Peter Conway (1939). A woman with
unusually sensitive skin who bought Harris Tweed coat did not disclose this fact to the
seller. Court held that since the coat would not harm normal people, thus the woman
should not succeed in his claim.

b) Buyer relies on the seller’s skills or judgement - It is necessary to show such reliance
either express or implied. Eg. Cammell Laird & Co. V Manganese Bronze and Brass Co.
Ltd. (1934). There was a contract between A and B. A was to built propeller for B in
accordance to B’s specification and design. However the details were left to A’s skill and
judgement. The propeller supplied complied with the specification but did not suit the
ship’s engine. Court held that A was liable for breach of implied condition since B had
informed the seller the purpose of the propeller and relied on A’s skill and judgement.

c) Goods must be in the seller’s business to supply - The seller must be in the business to
supply such goods. Eg. Ashington Piggeries Ltd. v Christopher Hill Ltd. (1972) In this
case the seller is in the business to supply animal food. The buyer bought mink food from
the seller. The food is not suitable for the animal. The buyer sued the seller. Seller argued
that he has never supply mink food before so he should not be responsible for that. Court
held that the seller is still liable because he is in the business to supply feeding
compaund.
d) Goods must be reasonably fit for the purpose - The goods must fit for the purpose, if it
is not fit for the purpose, the seller should be responsible. Eg. Spencer Trading Co. Ltd. v
Devon In this case the manufacturer supplied the D (seller), gum which was made from
natural material. A year later, the manufacturer supplied gum which was made from raw
material. P (buyer) sued the D saying that the gum was unsatisfactory for its purpose.
Court held that the goods are for the sellers business to supply. Since it was
unsatisfactory, it was not fit for its purpose.

e) Goods must not be bought under patent or trade name. - If the goods are specified
under its patent or trade name, there is no implied condition as to fitness for particular
purpose. Eg. Baldry v Marshall (1925) In this case a dealer recommended a Bugatti for
touring. It was then realised that it was not suitable for that purpose.
Application :

1. Rely on Section 4(1) Sales Of Goods Act 1957, Sales assistant of Nicegrow Ent.
Yazid had recommended ‘Healthygrow’ branded fertilizer to Hashim. Hashim
depended on the opinion given by Yazid about the ‘Healthygrow’ branded fertilizer
and made a purchase on the ‘Healthygrow’ brand.
2. Rely on Section 2 Sales Of Goods Act, Hashim can make an actionable claim against
the Nicegrow sales assistant for selling fertilizer that caused hashim's plants to die. In
the contract of sale of goods between Nicegrow Ent. and Hashim the goods sold by
Nicegrow are movable property and actionable claims.
3. Rely on Section 20 Sales Of Goods Act, A contract between Nicegrow Ent. and
Hashim was made when Yazid sold the ‘Healthygrow’ branded fertilizer to Hashim.
4. Rely on Section 18 Sales Of Goods Act, Goods sold by Nicegrow Ent. that is the
‘Healthygrow’ fertilizer must handed over to Hashim when the goods are ascertained
5. Rely on Section 5 (2) Sales Of Goods Act, The contract made between Nicegrow Ent.
and Hashim is by orally or by word of mouth. Hashim asked for an opinion from
Nicegrow Ent. sales assistant, Yazid about the product on sale. The contract of sale
made by Nicegrow Ent. and Hashim is through an offer to buy or sell ‘Healthygrow’
fertilizer at a certain price and the acceptance of the offer for the fertilizer.
6. Rely on Section 14(b) Sales Of Goods Act, The sales assistant recommended that
Hashim should buy “Healthygrow”. Hashim relied on the opinion given by Yazid
and purchased “Healthygrow”. After using the product for few days, his plant died.
Hashim was upset with the situation. This proved that, Hashim was not enjoy the
possession of the goods.
7. Rely on Section 15 Sales Of Goods Act, Hashim had always used a high-end brand in
the past, but he was expecting to discover something less expensive this time. He
examined the many varieties of fertiliser on display, noting the vast price ranges and
reading the advertising brochures. Some fertilisers had to be applied to the roots,
while others had to be applied to the leaves.Hashim relied on the sales assistant
opinion and buy “Healthygrow”. After using the product for few days, his plant died.
It shows that the good do not corresponded with description.
8. Rely on case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd. (1936 ), Hashim relied on the
sales assistant to buy “ Healthygrow “ but after using the product for few days, his
plant died. Since he relied on the sales assistant skill and judgment, the seller should
be responsible.
9. Rely on Section 16(1) Sales Of Goods Act, Hashim was not careful in making decisions
on the choice of fertilizer. Since Hashim is not careful in making decisions then he must
bare the consequences.
10. Rely on section 16(1)(a), provides that implied conditions as to fitness for particular
purpose exist if the 5 conditions are fulfilled.

a) Rely on Disclosure of purpose, Eg. Griffith v Peter Conway (1939). Hashim

looked at several types of fertilizer on display, noted the widely differing
prices, and read the promotional leaflets. Hashim then sought the advice of
sales assistant Yazid about the products on sale. It shows that Hashim doesn’t
disclose the fact about the plant that he wants to use the fertilizer to the sales
assistant.

b) Rely on buyer relies on the seller’s skills or judgement. Eg. Cammell Laird &
Co. V Manganese Bronze and Brass Co. Ltd. (1934). Hashim had always used
a top brand in the past, but he was hoping to find cheaper fertilizer at
Nicegrow Ent. Then he asked the sales assistant, Yazid recommended that
Hashim should buy “Healthygrow” but after a few days the plant die so the
sales assistance was liable for breach of implied condition.

c) Rely on goods must be in the seller’s business to supply. Eg. Ashington

Piggeries Ltd. v Christopher Hill Ltd. In this case, Nicegrow Ent. is a business
that supplies several types of fertilizers. Hashim bought ‘Healthygrow’
fertilizer from a sales assistant after being given the opinion to buy the
fertilizer. After a few days of using it, the fertilizer was found to be unsuitable
for the plant and caused his plant to die. It shows that Hashim can sue
Nicegrow Ent.
 d) Rely on goods must be reasonably fit for the purpose. Eg. Spencer Trading
Co. Ltd. v Devon, Hashim usually buys the top brand fertilizer but now
Hashim is looking for a cheaper fertilizer. Yazid recommended and convinced
Hashim to buy “Healthygrow”. Unfortunately, after a few days Hashim plant
died because the fertilizer was not suitable. It shows that Hashim can sue
Nicegrow Ent.

e) Rely on goods must not be bought under patent or trade name. Eg. Baldry v
Marshall. Hashim asks for advice from Yazid who is the sales assistant for a
cheaper fertilizer. Yazid recommended and convinced Hashim to buy
“Healthygrow”. After a few days of using it, the fertilizer was found to be
unsuitable for the plant and caused his plant to die. It shows that Hashim can
sue Nicegrow Ent.

Conclusion : Hashim can sue Nicegrow Ent because there was a violation in Sales of Goods
Act contract