Understanding Sale Of Goods Act 1908 And Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

Contractual obligations and ownership

The Sale of goods Act 1908 is defined as a contract wherein the seller agrees to the transfer of goods to the purchaser for the consideration of money known as price. The purpose of the Sale of Goods Act is to offer default rules for the responsibilities and remedies for parties to the contract (ADLS, 2018).

1) This is a contract of sales of goods because the seller made an agreement to transfer the property to the buyer, and section 15 is applied to this term that the supplied goods satisfy the given description.

2) Unless and until the shed is delivered to Paul, ownership of shed is in the hand of Lisa. It is because the Act states that when the property is eventually transferred to the other party, then only they are considered as the owner of it.

3) In this case, the loss would be born by Lisa; it is because the goods is not in good condition, according to the agreement. In addition to this, the shed is still in the ownership of Lisa, so she shall bear the loss.

In this case, the auctioneers will be responsible for bearing the loss, because it was their duty to keep the tables safe and secured.  In accordance with the applicable laws of Sale of Goods Act 1908, till the time goods are not delivered to the buyer, there is the duty of the present owner to bear the loss associated with damage of goods. Thus, consumer protection legislation, i.e. Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 is developed to offer special rules in contracts for the sale of goods and services to customers, in this way the auctioneers are liable for the ultimate loss (New Zealand Legislation, 2019). 

Jo would not be able to justify the rejection of oil, as under the Sales of Good 1908. It is because; Section 15 – states terms for sale by description, as per which Jo was required to ask for the description of product from the seller, and on the other hand, the seller was required to mention the specific details about the product such as its nature, use and purpose. Similarly, nor Jo can justify its reasoning neither the company, as they have a collective mistake.

1) In accordance with the Sale of Goods 1908, it was the responsibility of the company to keep the roll safe. The customer cannot be charged for this; it is because the product was under the possession and control of the company, so they have the ownership of the roll and they will be liable for the damage and bear.

Consumer rights and the duty of the present owner to bear loss

2) Under the Sale of Goods 1908, unless and until the product is not delivered in the hand of the customer, they would not be responsible for any loss if anything happens to it. The roll was under the possession and control of the company, so keeping it safe and secure was their responsibility, plus the damage is to be borne by company.

3) In this case, Pat was responsible for the damage that held to sound system, as he took the same for trial under his responsibility, and he did not take full care of the system.

The Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) secures customers by enabling them to seek for any repair, refund or replacement if there is a fault in delivered goods or services (Nicoll, 2017). This set minimum guarantees that are applicable to contracts associated with the sale of goods as well as services. This law is applicable on each and every business which is engaged in selling products are meant for household or individual use, inclusive of small or second-hand business, common Trade Me seller, auctions and pop up shops. 

The statutory right available against NML and Warren is to seek for repair, replacement, as well as a refund in case of it, has received  faulty goods as per the Consumer Guarantees Act. The supply of yacht and life jacket is covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act and guarantees applied to same are guarantee relating to products. An individual can claim as per provision of CGA in case he or she purchases a product and ascertains that they don’t work, break too easily, or they are not for the purpose which was expected (Consumer Guarantees Act, 2018). It comprises second-hand goods as well as all kind of personal property, software, animals, plant and mineral. In the present case, as the yacht and life jackets which were purchased by NML and Warren cannot be used for the purpose for which it was expected. Thus the same will be covered by consumer guarantee for products as per CGA.

(i)

The store requires remedying the issue as it is responsible for providing products as per the requirement of the customer. Further, even when a customer has specifically asked for the paint for the wood –rimu, the owner of the shop is required to provide the same or deny if it is not available and should not provide wrong product in any case.

Remedies available under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993

(ii)

Consumer Guarantee Act provides the following rights in case of faulty goods:

• Repair of good.
• Replacement of product.
• Refund.

(iii)

Sarah can file a case against the store in court or can claim for refund.

(iv)

In case there is no paint which worked on rimu therefore store will require refunding the amount paid by Sara. As she demanded the paint which can be applied on (rimu) wood and product provided by store specifies that it cannot be applied on the same.

Consumer Goods Act specifies rights to a customer in case faulty product is provided to the customer. This right comprises repair, replacement or refund of the product which depends on individual case. In the present case as the product provided by Auckland, Fridge Supplier is not fit for the purpose for which it was purchased because after one month only it stop to work and leaked water. Thus, the product provided by AFS is faulty, and Lucky has the right relating to repair, replacement and refund for the product purchased. The likely hood of remedies available depends on the type of product purchased and in case they don’t serve the purpose for which they were bought by the buyer. 

There has been a breach of Fair Trading Act 986 by Ice Country Limited in case it has changed the changed the manner of making of clothing and not updated the same on swing tags as well as website. The main intent of the Fair Trading Act comprises assuring consumers to get accurate information prior to purchasing product and services. Further, it also specifies that it is illegal for a business to mislead or deceive and require on a compulsory basis to provide accurate information to the customer regarding the product sold.

Specialist Laboratory service sells “a slim fast tablet,”, and it has been stated in the advertisement that they were manufactured in the USA. However, it is discovered that the same is manufactured in a backyard laboratory in South Auckland. Is this breach of law? Further, even though Bhavin has taken the tablet in a prescribed manner for six months, he has not loosened any weight too. However, the advertisement assures that a significant weight loss within three months in a case taken in a specified manner.

In the present case, there is a breach of the Fair Trading Act 1986. In accordance with the provision of the specified act, it is illegal to deceive about the products which are sold by the company. Further, it comprises an advertisement, as well as information which has been provided for creating false information (Armstrong, Edwards and Bowie, 2019). Thus, as Special Laboratory Services has provided deceptive information and the product have not worked for the intended purpose, it has breached the provision of Fair Trading Act 1986.

Breaches of the Fair Trading Act 1986

The potential problem with the advertisement which could cause Keen in the light of the provision of Fair Trading Act 1986 is the misleading information provided that keen has trained famous athletes. Further, it has also stated at the end that he has not trained any athletes. Thus, the information provided in the advertisement result into misleading as well as confusing the customer because it has not been provided in an appropriate manner which is a breach of provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1986.

There has been a breach of FTA 1986 because the specified law asserts trader behavior illegal in case deceptive or misleading conduct along with false representation has been made by any organization. It comprises statements about the nature of the manufacturing process, nature, price, quality of the service (Consumer Protection., 2017).  In the present case, as wrong information relating to the nature of product available in the store have been provided by Food Storage Ltd, thus the same results into the breach of FTA 1986.

1) Yes, because performance is the significant criteria for teaching and over the time the ratings of Hans are declining, and students are experiencing low grade due to which employer has the right to dismiss Hans.

2) Before employee dismissal, the employee is provided with the opportunity to hear; in this case, they can provide their statements and justifications so that there is no unfairness (Wilkinson, 2016). But in this case, Hans did not answer and not provided any reasoning, so in this case, the company followed the proper procedure of employee dismissal.

The company is required to keep the workplace free of discrimination and harassment; it must take the step of considering the opinions of Sextus and Lucretia with proper communication. The company in this scenario must convey that such behavior is not acceptable, and a warning will be given to the Sextus not to repeat this conduct again if he does so than the company has the right to terminate him.

In the present case, Rob must be provided with the fair opportunity and a chance to be heard; he should be not be dismissed directly rather than this he should be provided with the chance to improvise his actions and behavior. However, the behavior and actions of Rob were wrong; he should have treated customer with patience and respect (Sanders, 2016).

In the given case scenario, the employee dismissal of Mary was not fair, as the concern cited by the employer was too minute. She has right to have a fair opportunity of being heard and get the opportunity to improvise her performance prior to the final decision of dismissal more than that it was the responsibility to discuss all the terms prior to her joining. Thus, the term cited the 90 days trial period is not valid.

Employee dismissal

This case of employee dismissal is not fair. It is because it was not the mistake of Mary as this action was not related to her work performance plus the car was also parked at a blind spot. In addition, the employee dismissal procedure was not properly followed by the company, she was not provided with the opportunity to provide her statements, and without any opportunity to be heard she was dismissed (Thompson, 2016).

Mary has full rights to complain about the misconduct, as this kind of behavior is not intolerable. Mary has the right to take action against the customers, and on the men who were passing sexual remarks to her, the complaint can be made to senior supervisor, and Mary is in the state of victimization for this immediate action must be taken in her defense to support positive and harass free work environment (Oktafianto, Fitrian, Zulkifli, Wulandari&Pringsewu, 2018).

1) The existing hazards present in the organization include the manually lifting and attachment of aluminum components of varying weights and sizes on racks, plus this work is highly repetitive that resulted in discomfort for women employees. They faced an immense amount of pressure and threat of losing a job, for this aspect they never communicated the same. Moreover, the use of a forklift truck and much heavy lifting or manual materials handling was another risky task, if performed under pressure can lead to severe damage, so in the case of Thomas Aluminium.

2)It is the responsibility of the employer to safeguard the health, safety, and wellbeing of their employees and the involved individual who might be impacted by their business environment. In this case, employers must undertake health and safety laws and regulations to assess and address the risks in the workplace.  It is the duty of the employer to provide a positive work culture that is not pressuring to employee and maximum of safe and risk-free practices must be adopted in order to eliminate any kind of injury (Giovannone, 2016). In addition, it is the duty of the employer to assess whether there is proper supervision of risks present in business while checking the adequate accessibility of all facilities and complying with all reasonable practices to maintain maximum health and safety at the workplace.

1)The reasons for the fine and prosecution of owners of Thomas Aluminium were that they had not maintained an appropriate work environment for their employees, for which they suffered from severe injury and damage. They put higher pressure on employees due to this aspect that they have introduced a new culture of reducing costs and increasing production, for this they have downsized the workforce amount, subsequently putting higher pressure on existing employees (McLachlan, 2017).  The rationale for the fine was that workers had faced such injury that would not be able to work again; some of them faced the problems of discomfort and pain due to the unfair behavior and conduct by the company.

2)

Hazard Notification Form
Your name:	Date:	Location:	Notification to:
Thomas Aluminium	23 February 2019	New Zealand	Floor Manager
Date observed:
Description of hazard including significance in your opinion: Higher risk, lack of training, inappropriate guidance, poor supervision, utmost pressure	Any immediate action is taken to mitigate: (please describe) Change in supervision policy and providing former training to employees regarding their operational tasks.	Your recommendations to control or eliminate the hazard: To develop positive work environment from senior managers to employees so that they can run their operations smoothly without dealing with work pressure.
Signature of health and safety representative:

References

Books and Journals

Giovannone, M. (2016). Vulnerable workers: health, safety and well-being. CRC Press.

McLachlan, M. (2017). Focus: Health and Safety. Public Sector, 40(4), p.9.

Nicoll, C. (2017). Consumer sales law in New Zealand. In Comparative Consumer Sales Law (pp. 103-120). Routledge.

Oktafianto, M. R. A. A., Fitrian, Y., Zulkifli, S., Wulandari, A. M., &Pringsewu, S. T. M. I. K. (2018). Dismissal Working Relationship using Analytic Hierarchy Process Method. International Journal of Pure and Appliedlaw, 118(7), 177-184.

Sanders, K. (2016). HRM process approach: attribution of HRM. In Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Thompson, P. (2016). Labour process/theory. In Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Wilkinson, A. (2016). Employee voice. In Encyclopedia of Human Resource Management. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Online

ADLS, (2018). Sale of Goods legislation for beginners (and those who have forgotten what they know). Retrieved from < https://www.adls.org.nz/for-the-profession/news-and-opinion/2018/11/16/sale-of-goods-legislation-for-beginners-and-those-who-have-forgotten-what-they-know)/>.

Armstrong S., Edwards J. and Bowie M.  (2019). Product liability and safety in New Zealand: overview.  Retrieved from < https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/ >

Consumer Guarantees Act. (2018) Consumer right and your guarantees. (2018) Retrieved from< https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/consumer-guarantees-act/ >.

Consumer Protection. (2017). Fair Trading Act. Retrieved from < https://www.consumerprotection.govt.nz/general-help/consumer-laws/fair-trading-act/ >

New Zealand Legislation, (2019). Sale of Goods Act 1908.Retrieved from< https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0168/latest/DLM173958.html>.