Law - Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance
Question 2:
Mrs Yeung bought a water boiler from a Super Store. She found the following words printed on the face of the invoice: “Goods sold cannot be returned. The Store will not assume any responsibility for defect detected or any other liability incurred in the course of customers’ using our goods after sale.” The water boiler exploded when Mrs Yeung used it at home. Her eyes were injured.
Advise Mrs Yeung of her legal position.
In the above cases, as Mrs Yeung is dealing as a consumer, she can rely on the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap 26) (“SOGO”) and the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap 71) (“CECO”).
With the cases explained, the water boiler was exploded, if there are no other evidences provided, Mrs.Yeung could rely on the (Cap26) (“SOGO”). Examining the terms of the agreement, “Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality…” (s16(2) SOGO)
“Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of this Ordinance if they are- (a) as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought; (b) of such standard of appearance and finish;
(c) as free from defects (including minor defects); (d) as safe; and (e) as durable, as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances; and any reference in this Ordinance to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.” (s2(5)
SOGO)
In this case, SOGO applies as Super Store sold the water boiler to Mrs Yeung in the course of business and Mrs Yeung is a consumer. Remarked that Absence of any evidence that Mrs Yeung failed to use the water boiler as directed the water boiler was clearly unsafe and thus Super Store breached the implied condition that the goods sold must be of merchantable quality.
However, we still have to consider that if
Mrs Yeung bought a water boiler from a Super Store. She found the following words printed on the face of the invoice: “Goods sold cannot be returned. The Store will not assume any responsibility for defect detected or any other liability incurred in the course of customers’ using our goods after sale.” The water boiler exploded when Mrs Yeung used it at home. Her eyes were injured.
Advise Mrs Yeung of her legal position.
In the above cases, as Mrs Yeung is dealing as a consumer, she can rely on the Sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap 26) (“SOGO”) and the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance (Cap 71) (“CECO”).
With the cases explained, the water boiler was exploded, if there are no other evidences provided, Mrs.Yeung could rely on the (Cap26) (“SOGO”). Examining the terms of the agreement, “Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality…” (s16(2) SOGO)
“Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of this Ordinance if they are- (a) as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought; (b) of such standard of appearance and finish;
(c) as free from defects (including minor defects); (d) as safe; and (e) as durable, as it is reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances; and any reference in this Ordinance to unmerchantable goods shall be construed accordingly.” (s2(5)
SOGO)
In this case, SOGO applies as Super Store sold the water boiler to Mrs Yeung in the course of business and Mrs Yeung is a consumer. Remarked that Absence of any evidence that Mrs Yeung failed to use the water boiler as directed the water boiler was clearly unsafe and thus Super Store breached the implied condition that the goods sold must be of merchantable quality.
However, we still have to consider that if