David ordered a leather sofa, two matching armchairs and a pine dining table to be supplied and fitted by Cleggies Furniture Store in the January sales. The assistant gave him a sales agreement to sign. Two weeks later, the furniture was delivered. When the packaging was removed by Ed, Cleggies delivery man and fitter, the armchairs did not match each other or the sofa. Additionally, there was a deep scratch on one of the sides of the sofa. David was relieved when Ed had erected the dining table that appeared to be fine. David complained about the sofa and armchairs, but Ed said David should contact the Store.
Later the same day, when David sat down to eat his dinner at his new table, it collapsed under the weight of a salad bowl, and the heavy table top landed on David’s shin, thus causing it to break. Next morning, David contacted Cleggies and spoke to the owner, Nicky. Nicky pointed out that the sales agreement which David had signed contained the following clause: “We do not accept any liability for loss, damage or injury caused by our products or otherwise”. There is a need to advise David of any rights he may have.
The overall position of David is rather tricky. On the one hand, he has the rights to claim he dissatisfaction about the order he placed with the companies, in fact, the aspects of delivery the wrong goods and even they were in a bad quality. The worst scenario is that in the end, he finally gets injured due to the goods he has purchased already. On the other hand, as he is going for a claim about his rights and informs about the injury and damage coursed by his purchase, the only answer is, “We do not accept any liability for loss, damage or injury caused by our products or otherwise” (MacMillan & Stone, 2012).
Based on the contract law, there is an understanding of “Supervening Impossibility and Impracticability of Performance” (LexisNexis, 2004), due to which, he has the right to claim about the performance of the purchases goods, even though he already paid for them. The fact is that the duty of purchase could be discharged from the position of law and due to the evidence of impracticability of the order (LexisNexis, 2004).
According to the law, he has the right to make sure the performance of the purchased goods is satisfactory, until then, the transaction could not be considered as a valid one. In fact, the law states, “the party could assume the risk of the case of purchase before it is over” (LexisNexis, 2004). The criteria on the fact of selling could be condemned for the reason of goods to breach, which is exactly the case of David. The claim to revision the fact of purchase, as well as validity of goods could be extended based on the overall performance of the purchased goods. In this case, the responsible part is the one to answer the breach criteria.
Based on the contract law, such contracts that are conducted on the fact of unchecked performance could be considered illegal due to several reasons, one of which is the “destruction of the subject matter of the contract or other thing necessary for the performance of the contract, provided the destruction is not the fault of the party asserting impossibility”. In other words, it claims about the “failure of a specific thing necessary for performance to come into existence”. In such a situation, the “supervening governmental action” could also consider the contract as illegal and reimburse the losses in a full volume.
The other aspects that could talk about the inconsistency of the contract is the fact of any “potential harm” that could be caused in the course of the performance of the purchased goods. The other cases in which the agreement and / or contract could be considered as illegal are “extreme or unreasonable difficulty, expenses, injury or loss” (LexisNexis, 2004). In fact, David has exactly the same situation and, therefore, he has the rights to claim for the full reimbursement.
One more fact that could consider the contract illegal is the alternative performance of the purchased goods. In more detail, it means that such goods require “unreasonable expenditure of resources”, which also makes the performance of the contract illegal.
Another factor that could be useful for David is the “Supervening Frustration of Purpose”. According to the conditions of such a Frustration purpose, “the circumstances that take place during the “period of execution of the purchased goods” gain the possibility to discharge the contract, even though it was signed already. The reasons for such actions are the following: “the party is willing to reimburse the purchase for the reason of fault of the seller”. At the same time, the assumption that is made here is that any “circumstances do not prohibit the excuse based on frustration” (MacMillan & Stone, 2012).
In case the conduct goes deeper into the fact of frustration, it is acceptable to reveal any “economic or commercial frustration” in regards to the completed purchase. In fact, the “frustration party” might take the benefit of the seller for the purpose of recovery in terms of the contract consequences (LexisNexis, 2004).
The other aspect of Contract Law that could be of use to David is the excuse of condition. In this case, the condition is the “obligation of the seller to perform the contract duties based on the signed agreement”. In case of David, the condition of the contract could be excused due to the reason of inadequate performance that resulted in injury and material losses (MacMillan & Stone, 2012).
Exactly as the case of David, the performance of the purchased goods resulted in the duty of the party, which sold the goods to take full responsibility for both loss and damages. Moreover, based on the general outcomes of a “Rejection of Non-conforming Tender”, the buyer can reject the goods, which fail to meet the basic requirements” (LexisNexis, 2004). Thus, the buyer has the full right to claim for the contract rejection due to the failure of its conformity.
One more aspect that could work for David is the “Cure of Non-conformities”, according to which, the buyer has the right to reject the purchase of goods in the day of delivery or tender of goods that do not conform with the contract terms. In this case, the seller should be responsible for the breach in regards to the delivered goods. In fact, the standard time of expiration on the performance testing is 30 days since the purchase was made. It is also called “Effect of Failure to Provide Assurances”. Hence, David informed the seller right after the purchase within the limit of 30 days and should deserve for the cure of conformity from the position of seller. In other words, this means that performance time has not expired yet, and the seller has full responsibility for the consequences of the goods (LexisNexis, 2004).
In this case, the circumstances go to the fact that the buyer has claimed about the tender of non-conformity of the goods purchased from the seller. Consequently and according to the contract law, “the seller could be entitled to cure the conformity” (LexisNexis, 2004). Indeed, considering the fact of the breach and non-delivery of the right goods, the seller be responsible for all the consequences and behave towards the claim. David should also pay attention of the date of testing the performance of the goods purchased, he did inform the seller in the time of performance test, which has not expired by the time of claim.
In case the seller has informed the buyer about the low quality of goods, the situation could have been completely opposite, and the seller would not be responsible for the outcomes; he would pay only for the extra work and delivery of the fixed goods. Indeed, the reputation of the seller would not be promising due to failure to deliver the right goods and inability to produce the products of high quality. Now the time has come to talk about the “Types of Remedies”, which are closely related to the damages of David due to his purchase from the seller. This is the time to refer to the “expectation damages” that has a close relation to the buyer (MacMillan & Stone, 2012).
According to this aspect of the contract law, “the seller is responsible to compensate the injury and property loss for the benefit of the buyer”. The proof of the claim could be issued with the help of breach from the position of the seller as well as the improper performance of the goods purchased. In this case, this is another reason to consider the contract to be illegal and fully cover the damage of the buyer due to the purchase of goods.
Now the time has come to talk about the expectation damage compensation. The buyer was injured and has all the evidence in support of this fact. This is one more reason to consider the contract of no legal authority and make the seller compensate the injury fully, damage and other losses. In order to do this, David should have all the materials about the contract price, loss of the damage in value, as well as all the losses of profits.
Such damages areusually considered as the ones to be foreseen, and every contract that abides by law should mind this aspect in the course of the contract execution. Any breach is unnatural, and in this case, the law insists upon the full compensation to the buyer or any other party that has losses due to the purchase of goods. “It is important to demonstrate all the damages or at least provide the proof or any other evidence as far as the damage is concerned in order to have an advantage in court”. David needs to have all the information about the purchase itself, as well as all the evidence to support his claim to compensate for the damages, injury and other loss of profits (LexisNexis, 2004).
One more aspect to contemplate about is the “Restitution by Injured Party”, which means that the buyer was injured during testing the performance of the purchased goods. This pertains to the fact of breach, where the party, which is fully responsible for the consequences of the contract as well as goods of no quality, is the seller, who is responsible to “compensate for the performance of goods” along with the “definite amount of money to be paid for the injury due to the improper performance of goods”.
The most important thing is to understand that the buyer suffered due to the seller and his contract that offered the delivery of non-quality goods, which resulted in a damage, injury and profit loos. This is also the fact that should be examined in detail in court in order to ask for the full compensation from the position of seller.
At the same time, the buyer, David should have all the information about the breach, the signed contract and the list of declared expenses on the injury, damage and loss of profits. This is the only way to get ready for the case in terms of compensation for the damaged goods. The approach to be ready for all the scenarios of the court is important to win the battle between the buyer and seller.
On the one hand, the possibility of being rejected is also possible since the contract has the provisions that state, “We do not accept any liability for loss, damage or injury caused by our products or otherwise” (MacMillan & Stone, 2012).
On the other hand, there is obviously a reason why this particular phrase is present in the contract, and if the buyer conducts a research on the seller’s business affairs or asks about the information in the governmental agencies, one can find this reason. Therefore, such a scenario will automatically prove the position of the buyer as well as command for the full compensation from the position of seller.
To conclude, David should be ready for all the possible scenarios of the affair and at the same time claim for his rights and ask for the full compensation from the position of seller. This includes full expenses, commissions, that money that was spent to cure the injury as well as the information to proof the evidence of the damage, injury and the loss of profits. In all, David should make everything possible to ensure the court about the business approach of the seller and ask for the full reimbursement of the incident that took place for the reason of the breach of the purchased goods from the seller.