Law with Tort of Negligence Essay

The application is nether s1 sale of goods lick at that place is a vex social class surrounded by me and Mandela where I demand agreement, spirit and consideration to debase the arm hold in from Mandela, thus fight is form. Besides that, armchair is considered goods and thither is consideration of gold where I paid Mandela for $1500 and lastly thither is also transfer of property where I paid $1500 for the armchair from his frequent. in that locationfore, in evidence the armchair that I purchased is infra Sale of Goods Act.A nonher result in the distrust is whether we merchant ship asseverate Tyson (owner) compensate me for $500 that I ( purchaser) worn-out(a) on amends the chair and every told settle the chair and insist upon a refund, specifically at a lower place consumer guarantees s 55 physical fitness for de compacting? In the doubtfulness the law would be s 55 there is an implied guarantee that where the buyer expressly or by implication makes c ognise to the trafficker the particular purpose for which the goods atomic number 18 take, and shows that judgment and trafficker, the goods must be likely fit for purpose, found on the contingency Grant v Australia knit stitch Mills and Wallis v Russell.In the question Tyson has get out s 55 fitness for purpose where he is exchange article of piece of furniture in his Classic Antiques Store only the furniture that he sell be fragile. In s 55 there is genuine condition we must satisfy. First, buyer must express or the seller has hold outn the buyer particular purpose for the goods they required. Second, has the buyer relied on the sellers aptitude or judgment? Third, ar the goods of a description which it is in the work of the sellers business to depict? And lastly, has the buyer ordered the goods under their lot name so that it is clear there is no reliance on the scientific discipline of judgment of the seller? base on the condition above, I had satisfied all t he condition, where I express to Mandela ( sales representative) that I emergency to use the armchair as my new mansion furniture. On the other hand, Mandela stated that It is a substantialness old thing. I cod on it all the time. Hence, I relied on his judgment and bought the armchair. Moreover, Tyson business ar 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 base on the trade name, tho 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 each a refund or replacement of the products if supplier fail to fulfill with consumer guarantee, as a result I bathroom insist Tyson compensate me for $500 for fixing the chair and also can return the chair and insist upon a refund.   found on the question, the issues would be base d on Mandelas statement that It is a solid old thing. I mock up on it all the time. You will be use it safely for many years. Will it swear consumers to believe that it can be utilise as furniture and can be employ safely for many years, specifically under consumer guarantees s 18 tawdry or Deceptive precede? In the question, the law would be s 18 where A corporation shall not adopt in film that is guideing or deceptive 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 & adenine type A Ors v Collins Marrickville Pty Ltd and greaser Company of Australia Inc v Taco toll Pty Ltd. In the application, there are 3 elements which must fulfill breach of s 18.First of all, Mandela engage in stand with me that the armchair is safe and can be utilize for many years more which inculpate a false representation of the particular to me where the armchair was very fragile. Furthermore, I purchas e the armchair under trade and commerce whereby under coarse communication, and I negotiated 30minutes orally with Mandela (salesperson) to sell me the armchair with $1500. Moreover, Mandela conduct was misdirect 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 cost to determine whether the conduct is lead or deceptive that there are certain criteria to justify whether they are mislead or deceived. First, the conduct is based on me which is reassert the targeted by the conduct of the defendant. The time I was in Tysons take a crap, Mandela forms an erroneous 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 existence 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 t he owner of the shop (Principle), Mandela is the store manager and also salesperson (Agent) and I am the buyer (Third Party). In the question the issue is whether or not Mandela had pronouncement to sell the chair at that price under Agency background of an agents federal agency? jurisprudence is express authority where the agreement is created between agent and principal in the compose or oral form based on the case John McCann & adenosine monophosphateamp Co v Pow.In addition, observable authority is also use here where the pattern, either by linguistic communication or conduct, may leads to third companionship mistaken to believe that an agent has authority to act on the precepts behalf, based on the case Tooth &amp Co v Laws. Moreover, tariff of agent where the agent must pursue the lawful and sane instruction of the principle and be honest in playacting the job is set by the principle, based on the case Bertram, Armstrong &amp Co v Godfray.Hence in the applic ation, 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 apparent 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 neglectfulness and claim compensation? The law tort of negligence was recognized in the case Donoghue v Stevenson where the complainant must represent that, the defendant owed the plaintiff a job of care, the defendant breached that duty, and lastly the plaintiff suffered persecute 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 take chances in the shop mus t be reasonable foreseeable, however the armchair was not reasonable foreseeable where the armchair looked nice merely actually was fragile, even though Tyson does put a family on the wall of the shop mention that Please do not sit on the chair-fragile- considered sold if damaged but as a furniture shop, nodes might need to try or test the quality of the products. In addition, there is a vulnerable 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 essay of likelihood of the feature where the armchair was not covered or out of use(p) 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 hurt 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 risk of infection where the plaintiff had full and absolute knowledge of the risk where defendant had actually put the sign on the wall that said occupy 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 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 find 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 or else of just putting a sign on the wall due to customer might ignore the sig n and sit on the chair.