Mika Claim To Pay Case
Issue
Trousers & More should have check there stock before putting them on the shelves:
Should Mika be accountable for his own skin rash?
Can Mika claim for compensation?
Application
Trousers & More should have check there stock before putting them on the shelves:
After finding out that that the item purchased has bisulphite of soda stain he contracted with dermatitis. Bisulphite of soda is a strong acid that can be very dangerous if not used in care. In this case the manufacture is at fault. Mika has already suffers from skin burns.
Should Mika be accountable for his own skin rash?
Mika has been a loyal customer for the sore, majority of his outfit was always purchased form the store. So there will be a little trust from store that Mika wouldn’t do anything to jeopardize the store reputation. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] 54 CLR 49 held that there had been breaches in the implied condition of good were merchandized quality. The requirement that the god be bought by description was interpreted liberally, so even the purchase involving the customers buying the goods over the counter after seeing the item, it was held that this was still sale by description. The good did not meet the requirement of being used as the underpants, thus not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose. …show more content…
In the case of Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v Bird Construction Co., (1995) , 121 D.L.R (4th) 193 (S.C.C) the owner of the apartment building was required to make repair to his apartment after a part of it was damaged. It was later found that defect was on the masonry work. The present owner sues the construction company who did the original work. Mika has brought the good and is now belong to him. The store purchase the good without checking it because maybe the store has been purchasing the item from them so there is a trust there. However negligence from the manufacture has caused Mika
Trousers & More should have check there stock before putting them on the shelves:
Should Mika be accountable for his own skin rash?
Can Mika claim for compensation?
Application
Trousers & More should have check there stock before putting them on the shelves:
After finding out that that the item purchased has bisulphite of soda stain he contracted with dermatitis. Bisulphite of soda is a strong acid that can be very dangerous if not used in care. In this case the manufacture is at fault. Mika has already suffers from skin burns.
Should Mika be accountable for his own skin rash?
Mika has been a loyal customer for the sore, majority of his outfit was always purchased form the store. So there will be a little trust from store that Mika wouldn’t do anything to jeopardize the store reputation. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] 54 CLR 49 held that there had been breaches in the implied condition of good were merchandized quality. The requirement that the god be bought by description was interpreted liberally, so even the purchase involving the customers buying the goods over the counter after seeing the item, it was held that this was still sale by description. The good did not meet the requirement of being used as the underpants, thus not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose. …show more content…
In the case of Winnipeg Condominium Corp. No. 36 v Bird Construction Co., (1995) , 121 D.L.R (4th) 193 (S.C.C) the owner of the apartment building was required to make repair to his apartment after a part of it was damaged. It was later found that defect was on the masonry work. The present owner sues the construction company who did the original work. Mika has brought the good and is now belong to him. The store purchase the good without checking it because maybe the store has been purchasing the item from them so there is a trust there. However negligence from the manufacture has caused Mika