MOHAMED V DRESS WORLD & MOAHMED V MALE’ MOTO GARAGE

Individual assignment

OCTOBER 1, 2017
AISHATH DHEENA ZAEEM (S06010), BMKTS1E
Lecturer: Ahmed Matheen
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

Contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 2
MOHAMED V. DRESS WORLD ............................................................................................................... 3
Issue one ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Negligence ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Issue two ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Implied terms ........................................................................................................................................ 4
MOHAMED V. MALE’ MOTO GARAGE................................................................................................. 5
Issue one ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Issue two ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Implied terms ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................... 6
References .................................................................................................................................................... 7

1
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

INTRODUCTION

This report contains legal advice given to Mohamed on two legal matters. The first matter is
Mohamed V. Dress World. In this case Mohamed is given advice on what remedies are available
for him in return for the damages caused by Dress World. The second matter is legal advice
given to Mohammed regarding the contract of sale for a motorcycle with Male’ Moto Garage.
The information given in this report is based on Sales of goods act 1979 and precedent cases.

2
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

MOHAMED V. DRESS WORLD

(a) Mohamed seeks legal advice to as what possible action(s) he is entitled to against Dress
world. After contacting a serious skin disease caused by wearing a shirt which had
several chemical elements that caused the skin disease.

Issue one
Negligence
Law of negligence was established in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], and in order for the claim
to be appealed the claimant must prove
The defendant owed them duty of care
As a garment retailer Dress World is obligated by duty of care towards their customers. Dress
World has to be sure that the clothes they are selling does not cause any harm to the customer.
The defendant was in breach of that duty
The garment that was purchased from Dress World was labelled as a G2000 shirt, which had
several chemicals according the reports from the dermatologists. Which caused Mohammed to
get a serious skin disease and Dress World denies any liability and claims that Mohammed
should have checked that before purchasing. But there is no way that Mohammed could have
identified that the shirt had chemicals in them by just observing it. And as it was labelled as
G2000 brand, Mohammed as well as any customer would be compelled to trust the brand. As a
retailer Dress World ignoring this is proof that they have
The breach of duty caused damage
According the reports from Mohammed dermatologist Mohammed has contacted with a serious
skin disease caused by the chemicals which was present in the shirt Mohammed purchased from
Dress World. If Dress World did had duty of care towards their customer they would not be
selling fake labelled clothes. If the clothes were of good quality and the customers were well
informed about the manufacturer of garments a damage like this could have been avoided.
The damage was not too remote
Moahmed has contacted a serious skin disease after wearing the shirt bought from Dress World.
This is not a remote damage. This disease is a threat to Mohamed’s life as it is a serious skin
disease and would cause him money and time to cure.

The claim of negligence toward duty of care by Dress World can be appealed to court of law as it
has passed the neighbor test which was established after Donoghue v Stevenson [1932], where

3
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

the claimant proved that the defendant was negligent to duty of care and got return for the
damages caused.

Issue two
The transaction between Dress World and Mohamed will be considered as a contract of sale of
goods under S.2 (1) sale of goods act 1979, where a contract of sale of goods is a contract by
which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer property to the buyer for a money consideration,
called the price. Dress World sold the shirt to Mohamed for a price of MVR 200. And because
of this there are implied terms to this contract and breach of these terms will lead the contract to
be terminated.

Implied terms
Description of goods (s.13)
Where there is a contract of sale of good by description it is an implied term that the goods will
correspond with the description. Although this sale was not all dependent on description of
goods, s.13 (3) sale of goods act 1979 a sale of good is not prevented from being a sale by
description by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer.
And in the case Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull fine [1991], the claimant lost
protection under s.13(3) since they sent an expert to check the product so the sale was not by
description. In this case the label was the description of good. The shirt was labelled as a G2000
shirt but later it was found out that it was not. So Dress World is in breach of an implied term of
a contract of sale of goods.
Satisfactory quality (s.14)
Implied term laid by the sales of goods act 1979, is that the goods sold under the contract will be
of satisfactory quality (s.14 (2)) and the fitness for the buyers purpose s.14 (3). For the
application of s14 (2) of sales of goods act 1979. For the application of s.14 (2) the sales of
goods act there must be:
I. Seller sells goods under course of business
Dress World a famous shop for selling branded clothing, so the goods are sold in the course of
business. So implied terms under s.14 (2) of sales of good will be applicable for this case.
II. Goods supplied under the contract
Goods was supplied after payment.

Dress world has breached two implied terms of contract of sale of goods. That is description of
goods does not match with the goods that was provided to Mohammed. The shirt was labelled as
a G2000 shirt, but when it actually was not, so the description goods has been breached. The
second term that Dress World has breached is s.14 of sales of goods act 1979. The shirt is not fit
for the purpose of as it contained chemicals which cause a serious skin disease. And the shirt was

4
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

not of satisfactory quality. The satisfactory quality for a shirt is that it is wearable and not
harmful to skin.

MOHAMED V. MALE’ MOTO GARAGE

(a) Mohamed seeks legal advice to as what possible action(s) he is entitled to against Male’
Moto garage after Maldives police service confiscated a motorcycle which Mohamed has
bought but title was not fully transferred to Mohammed because the motorcycle was
stolen.

The transaction between Mohamed and Male’ Moto Garage will be considered as a contract of
sale of goods under s, 2(1) sales of goods act 1979. He had paid for the motorcycle. A contract of
sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agree to transfer the property money
consideration called the price. As this is a contract of sales of good there are implied terms that
comes along. And breach of these terms can make the contract void or claimant can appeal for
remedies in case of breach.

Issue one
One of the essential features of the contract of sale is “transfer of property from the seller to the
buyer”. Even after the sale Moto Garage did not transfer the ownership of the motorcycle to
Mohamed.

Issue two
With the formation of contract of sales there implied terms which should be fulfilled.

Implied terms
s.12 (1) of sales of goods act
This term implies that the seller has the right to sell the goods. This term is considered as a
condition in all sales. After a confiscation of the motorcycle by Maldives police service it was
found out that Moto Garage was no the original owner of the motorcycle. So Male’ Moto Garage
is in breach of an implied term. Since the good they are trying to sell is not a property that they
own. And Moto Garage doesn’t not have the right to sell the motor cycle. So Mohammed can
appeal to court of law for the contract to be terminated and the money he spent on motorcycle to
be returned by Moto Garage because a condition has been breached. In the case Rowland v
Divall, it is established that a stolen good cannot be sold and the owner has the right to property
and if the buyer had paid a sum of money in exchange it should be returned by the seller who
sold the stolen good.

5
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

s.12 (2) (a) of sales of goods act

This term implies that the good are free from any encumbrance. This term is only a warranty so
if this term is breached, the claimant can claim for any loss caused by encumbrances but they
cannot end the contract for just breach of a warranty.

s.12 (2) (b) of sales of goods act

This term implies that the buyer can enjoy quiet possession of the goods. This acts as an
ongoing assurance that no one will interfere with the buyer’s right to possess or use the goods.
This term is warranty. This was practiced in Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Markings [1975],
where the claimant was unable to use the bought goods, this was considered as a breach of s.12
(2) of sales of goods act 1979. Mohamed was unable to get any use from the motorcycle he
purchased from Moto Garage and the motorcycle was confiscated my Maldives police service
before it was of any use to Mohammed. Due to this breach in warranty Mohamed can appeal for
return of breach in court of law on the basis of s.12 (2) (b) of sales of goods act 1979.

Conclusion

Mohamed has two legally valid reasons to claim for damages from Dress World. And has
enough proof to appeal to the court of law against Dress World as Dress World has breached the
terms on the contract of sales of good. And for the second case Mohamed can appeal to law to
terminate the contract and return for damages since a condition has been beached. And moreover
two warranties have been breached as well. So Mohammed has hard ground to claim for
damages from Moto Garage and end the contract.

6
LAW103 INDIVIUAL ASSIGNMENT

References
(n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/54

Consumer And Commercial Law. (n.d.). Retrieved from law teacher: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-
law-essays/commercial-law/consumer-and-commercial-law-essay.php

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932).

Grant V. Australian Knitting Mills (1936).

Harlingdon & leinster v Christopher hull fine art (1991).

Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Markings (1975).

Rowland v Divall (1922).

Rowland V. Divalli (1923).

sale of goods act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutory-implied-terms.php

Sales of goods act . (1979).