A contract is a formal agreement between two parties who willingly reach a consensus to exchange goods for goods, or goods for money (Corones, 2016, p. 11). In the sale of goods transaction, the parties to the contract are the seller, who owns the goods as well as the buyer, who is interested in taking ownership of the goods. As argued in the case of Freeman v Cooke, a contract is established by man’s intention to assent to the terms of another party and conducts himself in a reasonable manner. However, it is evident that conflicts are prevalent in the sale of goods contracts, thus prompting the use of legal interventions to resolve the disputes. The case of Roberta, the claimant, against Myers Stores Ltd, the defendant entails a contractual dispute in which the plaintiff claims that the Myers Stores Ltd breached their contract by selling her products she did not anticipate to receive as per the contract.
Legality of the Transaction
According to the Australian law, a contract is valid when it meets certain conditions that create both a legal and commercial relationship between the parties (Corones, 2016, p. 45). As such, the transaction between Roberta and Myers Stores Ltd depends on whether the engagement entails the stipulated conditions. For instance, a valid contract in Australia as per the consumer laws should entail free consent between the parties, competency of the parties, consideration as well as lawful objects. In light of this, both parties should agree to the sale and purchase of the items. Besides, both parties to the transaction should be competent, that is, attain the legal age of entering a commercial transaction as well as being of sound mind and judgment. Finally, the item being traded should be lawful and protected by commercial laws. For instance, Australian laws prohibit an over-the-counter approach when trading firearms, explosives, and drugs. As such, contract is only valid when these essential elements have been satisfied. It is essential to acknowledge the fact that both Roberta and Myers Stores Ltd satisfy these essential elements, thus validating this aspect of the contract.
Secondly, parties should be identified for the transaction to be effective. In this case, the seller of the commodities is Myers Stores Ltd whereas the buyer is Roberta. According to the Australian consumer law, both parties should agree for the sale of the ownership of the goods to be transferred. The two parties should be autonomous since a contract cannot be effective when there is only a sole individual that is involved in the transaction. Since Roberta and Myers Stores Ltd are autonomous persons interested in the transaction, the contract is recognized by the Australian Consumer laws.
Thirdly, the goods being traded in the transaction should be clearly identified for the contract to take effect (Corones, 2016, p. 64). The goods include stocks and shares, items, growing crops as well as land. In the case of Roberta and Myers Stores Ltd, the goods being sold are a pasta maker, a turntable, and shoes. The fact that the items can be traded under the Australian Consumer laws validates the transaction.
Transfer of ownership should also happen for a contract to hold. In a contract of sale as in the case of Roberta and Myers Stores Ltd, there should be a transfer of ownership of the goods from the seller to the buyer upon reaching an agreement ion the terms of payment. Upon making the payment for the three items, Roberta assumes ownership of the property, that making the transaction effective.
Finally, the fact that a price for the goods is involved in the contract makes the transaction valid (Carter, 2016, p. 150). Each of the three items had a price tag for which the buyer made a specific payment. Both the buyer and the seller agree to the price, thus establishing a buyer-seller settlement. As such, the transaction between the two parties is valid and can, therefore, be enforced or relied upon in case of a dispute.
Implied Terms
The Australian Contract law seeks to enforce the promises that form the binding element in contracts, thus establishing a legal relationship between the trading parties (Corones, 2016, p. 101). The terms of the contract in the Australian law emanates from the common law of England as well as principles arising from modifications through the Australian courts. The amendments to the provisions of the common law have, therefore, departed slightly from the traditional legal provisions since the 1980s.
Implied terms are the presumed intentions and responsibilities of the parties to the contract. The implied terms are unique in the sense that they are tailored to the nature of the agreement and are binding on the parties to the contract. Formal contracts ascertain implied terms, with reliance on the case of BP Refinery Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977). In the hearing and the determination of the case, the Judges outlined the various conditions that ought to be met for implied terms to hold in a contract. The first condition that was identified was that the term should be reasonable and equitable, meaning that both parties should not find it unfair for an implied term to be applied. Secondly, the said terms should have business efficacy, meaning that the proposed term should be necessary for the said business to be effective (Ellinghaus, 2009, p. 127). Thirdly, the implied term should have an aspect of obviousness. The term should prima facie be implied without necessarily having to state it, at least in the view of a bystander. An implied term should also have clarity by offering a precise expression. Finally, the term should be consistent in the sense that it should not be contradictory to other express terms of the contract.
In the case of Roberta, it was implied that the items purchased from the Myers Stores Ltd would be fit for purpose. This provision of law implies that an item, purchased by a customer should be ably usable for the purpose for which they are procured. For instance, if an individual purchases a hammer, it is reasonable that the item’s surface should be strong enough to hit a surface and achieve the intended action such as driving nails to a wooden surface. As such, if the item does not have the capability of pursuing this task, therefore it can be argued that it is not fit for its purpose. However, it cannot be argued that the purchased item is not fit for purpose if it is used to undertake functions for which they are not designed to manage. In light of this, the shoes obtained from Myers Stores Ltd do not last Roberta for long and, therefore, do not serve her well for the purpose that prompted the purchase. It is also essential to acknowledge the events leading to the destruction of the shoes are in the line with their intended purpose. As argued in the case of Jones v. Willis (1934), the goods being sold should be of a merchantable quality for the sale of goods contract to hold. For this reason, Roberta would have a reasonable argument that owing to the quality of the shoes, the items purchased from Myers Stores Ltd were not fit for purpose. There ought to have been a disclaimer that by using the shoes in a manner that resulted in their destruction, the user would not be guaranteed of a proper service by the shoes.
Secondly, in the case of sealed products, it is implied that the item enclosed in the package should match their description (Carterm, 2016, p. 25). When purchasing the pasta maker, it was implied that the contents of the package would consist of the real item. However, upon opening the box after the purchase is made, Roberta realizes that the package had a popcorn maker and not a pasta maker. As such it is evident that Myers Stores Ltd offered a labeled the wrong item, thereby misleading their customers. As such, the company has both a legal and moral obligation to either refund or correct the mistake by issuing the right item upon receiving a claim from the complainant.
It is also implied that the item to be sold should be in the right condition and that all defects, if any, should be communicated to the buyer (Ellinghaus, 2009, p. 211). The disclosure is intended to guarantee the safety of the users and their property. However, while using the turntable, Roberta’s brother accidentally destroys one of his records because of the defects of the turntable. Similarly, the destruction of Roberta’s shoes on the first day of usage is reasonable to term the items as defective at the time the purchase is made.
Remedies for the Breach of Contract
The law offers provisions for the remedy of a party that feels aggrieved by another in a binding contract. The legal provisions are an acknowledgment of the fact the breach of contracts is common and occurs either intentionally or subconsciously (Carter, 2016, p. 69). A breach of contract ensures when the goods purchased are defective, failure to make delivery within the stipulated timelines as well as non-payments. Since Roberta’s case is an incident in which she blames the Myers Stores Ltd for breach of contract, it is essential for her to seek legal remedies.
One of the remedies to Roberta’s claim is seeking specific performance by Myers Stores Ltd. In this case, the plaintiff should file a legal suit prompting the accused act in earnest and within the spirit of the contract. In light of this, the legal authorities should prompt Myers Stores Ltd to give the claimant goods that match the descriptions of the goods paid for. For instance, Myers Stores Ltd should give Roberta shoes that are not defective, a pasta maker as well as a properly functioning turntable. By delivering the products, Roberta would have benefited from making the payment from the goods initially purchased, and this remedied from the losses she would have encountered.
Another remedy that Roberta should seek in accordance with the law is filing for damages. It is essential to acknowledge the fact that one of Roberta’s records gets damaged by using the turntable gets damaged from using the turntable acquired from the Myers Stores Ltd, thus resulting in a loss. Had the company communicated the defects to the buyer, then it would be up to Roberta to advise her brother to exercise due care when using the turntable. However, the fact that the record is damaged upon using the turntable for the first time disqualifies the argument of negligence on the part of the user, thus forming grounds for a legal suit for damages. Secondly, Roberta’s mother fails to enjoy the utility of the pasta maker due to the inconvenience caused by the Myers Stores Ltd. As such, Roberta has a justified reason to seek damages as part of consumer protection by the Australian laws under the common law provisions.
The Legal Effect on Roberta’s Receipts
Receipts are legally recognized as evidence for the sale and purchase of a property (Corones, 2016, p. 98). The documents are also useful when disputes arise as a reference to the terms, time, place and parties to the contract. Each of the receipts in possession of Roberta reads, “No Refund or Exchange will be given for items on sale or on special.” The statement, therefore, expressly indicates that the seller would not be liable in case the buyer opts to demand a refund or return the goods to their shop for an exchange. As such, the statement is a disclaimer on the need for due diligence on the part of the buyer when they make the purchase. Thus, the receipts have a legal effect on the transaction.
However, in as much as the receipts expressly rule out chances of accepting the return of goods whose purchase has been completed, it is essential to acknowledge that the purpose of consumer laws is to protect the users of the commodities obtained from sellers. As such, the law acts as a source of remedy for parties that suffer from a breach of contract. As such, in as much as Roberta should have taken the statement on the receipt into consideration before leaving the premises, the seller ought to have acted in good faith by issuing the correct items that are in a good condition. In this case, Roberta can receive a partial remedy despite the statement against the return of the goods. For instance, Roberta stands a good chance of being awarded remedies for the pasta maker as the item did not match the prescriptions. The outcome of the case of Jones v. Willis (1934), in which the Judges ruled that goods should be of a merchantable quality, Roberta also stands to receive remedies for the breach of contract by the Myers Stores Ltd. For this reason, it is imperative for Roberta to sue the seller of the commodities owing to the fact that she has sufficient grounds for the suit.
Reference List
Case Laws
BP Refinery Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977)
Freeman v Cooke, (1848) 2 EX. 654
Jones v. Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110
Other Sources
Corones, S., 2016. Australian Consumer Law. Sydney: Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Pty Limited.
Carter, J. W., 2016. Carter's guide to Australian contract law. Chatswood, NSW : LexisNexis Butterworths.
Ellinghaus, M. P., 2009. Australian cases on contract. Melbourne, Vic.?: Code Press.
