Domestic Household Consumption Purposes â€Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Domestic Household Consumption Purposes? Answer: Introducation In order to attract the provisions of the 1958 Act, it is necessary that there must be some kind of sale and purchase that has taken place amid the consumer or non-consumer and the vendor or supplier. Further, the sale and purchase of the goods must have taken within the business course. But, the main question is who the consumer is and who is the seller as per the provisions of 1958 Act. As per section 3, a buyer is the person who buys or agrees to buy the goods and seller is the person who sells and agrees to sell the goods. As per section 7, Business both the buyer and seller are considered to be cable to enter into contracts provided they are capable as per the law of contract, that is, the parties are major as per the law of the country and are mentally competent. Also, as per section 85 of the Act the goods supplied are consumer goods provided the goods are mainly for dometic, household or for consumption purposes (Franzi, 1980) Now, whenever any seller is selling the goods to the buyer then there is an obligation upon him to comply with the provisions of Part 1, Division 2 of the 1958 Act. There are few conditions and warranties that are defined which are: Implied undertaking section 17 there is an implied undertaking the seller posses the requisite title of the goods prior to its sale (Niblett v Confectioners'Material. Sale by description section 18 there is a statutory condition on the seller that if the sale of goods is based on description then the goods must correspond with the description and is held in Frank v Grosvenor Motor Auctions Pty Ltd. Quality to fitness section 19 Normally there is no implied condition or warranty related to fitness. But, as per section 19 (1) of the Act, if the buyer has specified to the seller the specification prior the purchase of the goods then the goods so sold must match the description and any variation is contravention of section 19 (1) and is rightly held in Alpine Beef Pty Ltd v Trycill Pty Ltd . Also, if the seller deals with the goods with the goods of that description, then there is an implied condition that the goods must be of merchantable quality and is held in section 19 (1) (b) and is held in Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant. Now, section 18 and section 19 cannot be excluded in any manner unless and unless the sale is of non-consumer goods. Further, there is yet another law that is enacted with the aim to provide relief to the consumers. The same is Australian Consumer Law. Part 3-5 of the ACL deals with the protections that are laid down in favor of the consumers. The protections must be served by the manufacturers of the goods. A manufacturer is a person who makes the product or whose name is on the goods so sold and also includes an importer of the goods (section 7 of the ACL). Now, every manufacturer must supply goods which are non defective in nature but of the goods are defective a per section 9 of the law then the consumer has every right to sue the manufacture for damages. A good is defective by analyzing its marketing, packaging, instruction, warning etc. (Commonwealth consolidated Act, 2017) Further, there are few statutory guarantees that must be complying with. The same are: As per section 54 of the ACL, the goods must be of acceptable quality. If the goods does not contain any description then it become unmercantable and are of not acceptable quality and is held in H Beechamand Co Pty Ltdv FrancisHoward and Co Pty Ltd. As per section 56 of the ACL the goods must correspond with the description of the goods. If the description of the goods is on the packaging then the same must correspond with the packaging of the goods and is held in Varley v Whipp. As per section 55, the goods must fit for the disclosed purposes; The law is now applied to the facts of the case. A technology is developed by Clean Aqua Pty Ltd which is a domestic appliance, Clean Aqua, and is for residential use. Thus, as per section 85 of the Act, the goods so supplied are consumer goods as they are for use of domestic is household purposes. Now, Charlie visits one of the seller, EnviroPro Pty Ltd, and grabs one of the sales person wherein he specifies that he requires Clean Aqua for drinking purposes. Now, since EnviroPro Pty Ltd is the retailer of Clean Aqua Pty Ltd, thus, as per section 17, he has the requisite title to sell. Also, as per section 19 (1), Charlie has specified the requirements of the products prior to the purchase and submitted that he is relying on the sales person judgment. Thus, there is now an implied condition that the product so supplied by sales person must be fit for the purpose. Also, Charlie has specified the goods description and EnviroPro Pty Ltd deals in the product that is required by Charlie, thus, as per section 19 (1) (b), the goods must be of merchantable quality. But, the goods is supplied are not fit for the purpose acquired by Charlie as the product can only be used for gardens, swimming pools, toilets, clothes and dish washers and is not suitable for drinking purposes. Thus, EnviroPro Pty Ltd is in violation of section 18 and section 19 of the Act. Also, section 18 and section 19 terms cannot be excluded if the contract is a consumer contract. Since the contract amid Charlie and EnviroPro Pty Ltd is a consumer contract thus, the sign that excludes the liability of EnviroPro Pty Ltd is not valid in nature. Thus, the liability of EnviroPro Pty Ltd cannot be excluded and Charlie can sue EnviroPro Pty Ltd for his damages. It is submitted that the Clean Aqua is the product that is produced by Clean Aqua Pty Ltd and thus as per section 7 of the accounting, it is the manufacture of the said product. Now, being the manufacturer of the product it must comply with the statutory guarantees that are laid down in the law. Now, Clean Aqua Pty Ltd did not comply with section 56 of the ACL as the goods the description of the goods is on the packaging but the same was not part of the Clean Aqua when the same was purchased by Charlie (Varley v Whipp). Thus, there is violation of section 56 which will empower Charlie to sue Clean Aqua Pty Ltd for the damages that are sustained by him. Conclusion Thus, Charlie has the right to sue both Clean Aqua Pty Ltd and EnviroPro Pty Ltd as they has not comply with their statuary conditions under the ACL and the Sales of Goods Act 1958 respectively. Reference List Sales of Goods Act 1958 Consumer and Competition Act (2010) Schedule 2- Australian Consumer Law Business-law Australian Knitting Mills Ltd v Grant (1933) Alpine Beef Pty Ltd v Trycill Pty Ltd [2010]. Frank v Grosvenor Motor Auctions Pty Ltd (1960). H Beechamand Co Pty Ltdv FrancisHoward and Co Pty Ltd [1921]. Varley v Whipp (1900).