Advise Ahmed as to the rights he may have under the terms implied by the sale of Goods Act 1979.
Oliver Miller group 9
Soton plc, a second –hand car company, places an advertisement in a local newspaper, stating “1997 Ford Fiesta for sale, only £1,500. Ahmed bought the car and drove it for a week. He then discovered that it has a serious engine problem. He also discovered that the car was first registered in Ireland in 1993 and re-registered in the UK in 1997.
Advise Ahmed as to the rights he may have under the terms implied by the sale of
Goods Act 1979.
This problem has some important issues that may determine whether Ahmed has any rights over Soton plc, that are provided in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Soton plc may also be in breach of contract by false representation of the goods (the car). Therefore we must look to see if indeed a legally binding contract exists or existed between Soton plc (the promisor) and Ahmed (the promisee), since the act only applies to goods sold under a contract. Was the advertisement a formal offer from Soton plc or simply an ‘invitation to treat’? The questions if answered sufficiently will show if Soton plc have acted against the rights of Ahmed, and consequently if Ahmed has any grounds to enforce those rights against the car dealership. Also it must be shown by what means and which Acts have been breached that my give Ahmed rights over Soton plc. The alleged breach in this question will involve acting in contravention to the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
The problems Ahmed has encountered are, that the advertisement in the local newspaper offered to sell one Ford Fiesta registered in 1997 for only £1,500, and subsequently he found that it was in fact registered in 1993 in Ireland and re-registered in 1997. Furthermore a serious engine fault was discovered a week after purchase. Unless there was a contract that expressed or implied terms which correlate correctly with details of the car in question, Soton plc would be in breach of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. It therefore would be necessary to look at whether there was a contract for Soton plc to supply such a car (as advertised) to Ahmed, so it is important to distinguish whether the newspaper advertisement was an offer or an invitation to treat. If this cannot be proved Ahmed would have no protection or indeed rights over Soton plc as to the goods he has purchased from them. The case of Grainger & Son v Gough (1896) AC 325 explained that newspaper advertisements were invitations to treat and not an offer unless the advertisement is specific, and conveyed the quantity of the product that is for sale. It was also suggested that there must be some intent by the supposed promisor that the advertisement is an offer. After looking at the criteria laid down by Lord Herschell the advertisement is a contractual offer since it is specific (One 1997 ford Fiesta) and conveys a quantity of those particular cars for sale at that price, one “Ford Fiesta”. Had the advertisement said “Ford Fiesta’s”, it would be not be an offer as there is no stated quantity and it is not specific enough. The intent for the advertisement being an offer may be seen in the eventual sale of that particular car at the stated price. It has been therefore established that a contract did or does exist, but we need to look at the terms of that contract.