The case under consideration today concerns Micky, who is a self-employed painter and decoraot and a painting firm known as "Paintplus". Micky had bought a cottage in a coastal area and had bought help from an assistant at the Paintplus store in recommending a heavy duty masonry paint that would withstand the harsh climate changes evident on a coastal area, and a brand of wipe-clean paint that would be suitable for interior use in a wet area (the bathroom). The assistant at Paintplus recommended their own brand of masonry paint (Everlast) because it was the cheapest available. Micky checked the description on the tin and agrees that the paint appeared to be suited to her requirements. When asked about the bathroom paint the sales assistant told Micky that internal paints were not his speciality, but he had heard other customers comment favourably about a product known as "Cleaneasy". The store had some tins of Cleaneasy going at half price because the written description about the product had become detached from the tins some time previously so the tins were being sold without this documentation. Micky that might have been written on the leaflet and the sales assistant said, [quote] "its standard paint so just slap it on". Over time Micky had problems with both paint types she had purchased from Paintplus. The masonry paint was easy to apply and withstood the harsh climate of winter, but over the summer months the temperatures were "unprecedented" and the paint stated peel from the walls. The render under the paint was damaged through this and Micky had to employ a building professional to knock of the remaining render and paint, and then renderer and repaint the entire outside of the cottage. Micky did not have much luck with the Cleaneasy paint either. While she was applying the apint some of it dropped on her skin and she suffered an allergic reaction to the paint. She needed medical treatment and was off work for three weeks because of this reaction. She also lost a major decorating contract because of her illness. Later investigations about the description that should have been on the tin when she bought it declared that if [quote] "any person suffering from skin complaints or sensitivities should refrain from using this product".
Opinion:
The first question considered is whether or not Micky could claim a breach of contract against Paintplus, and if so on what grounds. Briefly a contract can be said to occur when an offer is made to one party by another, and that offer is accepted. Having goods for sale in a shop is not considered an offer as such, but rather an invitation to treat although a bilateral contract can be said to occur in that the buyer agrees to pay a certain price for goods, which the seller promises to deliver. The essential parts of a contract include the offer and acceptance, the consideration elements of the contract (sellers gets the money, buyer gets the paint), the acceptance that the contract concerned a business rather than social or domestic matter, capacity for both parties had to be able to enter a contractual agreement, an the contract has to be based on a legal transaction legality.
Relevant cases: Display of Goods in shops
Fisher v. Bell
Fact: The defendant displayed flick knives in his shop windows. He was then convicted of a criminal offence of offering such knives for sale.
Held: Display of any goods with a price tag on it in s shop window was not an offer but rather it was an invitation to treat.
No comments:
Post a Comment