Question

A water pipe burst in the basement of Superfast, a grocery store, flooding the basement and damaging cases of canned goods on the floor. The plumbing contractor’s workmen, in repairing the leak, knocked over several stacks of canned goods in cases, denting the cans. After cleaning up, Superfast put the goods on special sale.

Four weeks later Susan was shopping in Superfast. Several tables in the market were covered with assorted canned goods, all of which were dirty and dented. A sign on each of the tables read: “Damaged Cans – Half Price.”

Susan was having Guest for dinner that evening and purchased dented two cans of chicken, packed by Cansco, from one of the tables displaying the damaged cans. Before Guest arrived, Susan prepared a chicken pot pie which she and Guest ate. Both became ill and the medical testimony established that the illness was caused by the chicken being unfit for human consumption. The cans of chicken consumed by Susan and Guest came from the case that was at the top of one of the stacks knocked over by the workmen.

Susan asserts a claim against Cansco based on negligence, what results? Although Guest may have a case against Superfast, and the plumbing workmen may have some responsibility, you are only to discuss Susan’s claim against Cansco. What are the defenses which Cansco may raise?

Find three cases that support Cansco’s defense in this case. Write a short essay (minimum 500 word) defending Cansco. Cite to your supporting cases by comparing and contrasting the similarities and/or differences between those cases and Cansco’s case.

Answer 1

Morever there is another Case , it is moore and Cou Landauer and Co (1921), the Court held that although the method of parking made no different to the Market value of the goods, the Sale was by description under Section 13 of Sale of goods Act, and the description had not been complied with Consquently the buyers were entitled to reject the whole consignment by virtue of the provisions of what is now Section 30 (4) of the sale of good Act.

Here allording to question - The Salesman already put the Board for damaged Cand in half prisus. The Sale of Goods Act" 1979 Can help Canasco. According to this dut a small number rules concerned with an array of Presumptions and implied teams, which aim to reflect the Commercial expectations in the most Commonly agreed Sales Contrails. The sale of Goods Act 1979 is an act of the United Kingdom which regulates Contracts in which goods are sold and bought. The sale of Goods Act Performs Several fontion. Section 13 (1) Provides that, where there is a Contract for the sale of goods By DESCRIPTION, there is an impled Condition that the goods shall. Correspond with the description. Sale by description in Section (13) Canberraise by - Conasco for their defence. Example: The Case of Beale v Taylor (1967)

The case was provided the example of the So by description. The Case defendant advertised a Car for sale as being a 1961 triumph Heral beliving it to be true. the claimant inspected and checked the Car and saw a metal dise at the rear of the car with 1200h on it and purchased the car. He later discovered that the Car was Made up of a rear 1961 Herald Triumph 1200 welded to the front of an earlier Model triumph Hearld gue. A It was held to be breach of section 13 despite the fact that claimant had inspected the Car as he relied on the description in the advertisement and the metal disc at the rear of the Car. O finally the Court held that the claim for the breach of sale by description was failed. He had not relied on Mr. Hull's description of the painting as being by monter but bought it. So it had not been a sale by description for the sale of Goods het in sution 13 (1) because he had sent the Export to Examine the painting before purchased for it.