In the case of Julie she has made an offer by conduct to buy the shirt from the shop. There has become a legal binding agreement with her and the shop. She has taken consideration by giving money in exchange for the shirt and also intension to create legal relations. As to this purchase there is a contract between Julie and the shop. This situation is similar to case Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893 where an advert was placed for smoke balls to prevent influenza. The advert offered to pay £100 if anyone contracted influenza after using the ball. The company deposited £1,000 with the alliance bank to show their sincerity in the matter. The claimant bought one of the balls but contracted influenza. It was held that she was entitled to recover the £100. The court of appeal held that the deposit of money showed an intention to be bound therefore the advert was an offer, it was possible to make an offer to the world at large which is accepted by anyone who buys a smokeball, the offer of protection would cover the period of use and the buying and using of the smokeball amounted to acceptance.
2. In the sale of goods act the implied terms are that goods are of satisfactory quality and meet the standard quality that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description there is an implied term that the goods correspond with its description also the goods are as described e.g. if you are told a car has a 2 litre engine you are entitled to this.
In the case of Julie the shirt which she purchased was in satisfactory quality at the shop. As the label had clearly stated it was only suitable for workwear she had asked the shop assistant who said it would be fine for casual wear. Therefore the shop has to take responsibility as the worker had said it was fit for casual wear even though it wasn’t. The shirt was not as described as it said collar size 16 on the label, as it were tight presumably meaning it was small in size. The shirt was not as described and therefore rips beyond repair meaning it is not fit for the purpose either.
3. The law gives you certain rights as a consumer when buying goods. These are standards that apply to all sales of goods by sellers. If these standards are not met you are entitled to return the goods and get your money back, exchange or have them repaired. The retailer can decline any of these as long they can show that they are disproportionately costly in comparison with the alternative. Any remedy must be completed without significant inconvenience to the consumer. When goods are faulty buyers can generally obtain a legal remedy against the retailer. Buyers are not usually able to claim directly against the manufacture.
As the shirt has ripped beyond repair Julie is either entitled to a refund or exchange. It is under the manager’s duty to replace the shirt for Julie as she has a contract with the shop. It is not for Julie to take up the matter with the manufacture as she has her basic statutory rights as a consumer with the shop. This case is similar to Wren v Holt 1903 where a pub run by D was tied to a particular brewery, a customer P became ill after drinking large amounts of the beer and tests showed that the beer contained a quantity of arsenic. The court of appeal upheld a decision of Wills J and a jury that D was liable in contract for supplying beer not of merchantable quality. As to the goodwill of the shop the manager could offer a refund that goes further than Julie’s statutory rights. For example many shops will let you exchange goods, or even obtain a refund for goods that are not faulty or sub standard. Julie is protected in this purchase as a consumer and if she were to take the matter further she could go to the civil court. She would not need to see a solicitor as she has her statutory rights. The court will be in favour of Julie as it’s the shops responsibility that the shirt should have been satisfying.
