Diana suffers some skin problems. Her skin is very dry and sensitive.

She went to a pharmacy and

sought the advice of the pharmacist on a suitable moisturizer. The pharmacist advised her to use a
moisturizer with the trade name “Garmeer” unfortunately, her skin got worse after applying the
moisturizer on her skin. Advise Diana as to her rights under the Sale of Goods Act, 1957.

Explain the implied terms embodied in Section 17 of the SoGA, 1957

Implied Condition in a Sale by Sample -> s.17(2)

“In the case of a contract for sale by sample there is an implied condition –

a) That the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality;

b) That the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample;
c) That the goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unmerchantable which would
not be apparent on reasonable xamination of the sample.”

In a contract of sale by sample, the goods sold must correspond with the sample. If the goods are
bought in bulk, the bulk must correspond with the sample. If certain part of the goods correspond
with sample, but the other part is not, the buyer has the right to reject the whole bulk.

If the bulk correspond the sample but there is a latent defect, rendering the goods inmerchantable,
the buyer is entitled to reject them.

DRUMMOND v VAN INGEN

The cloth supplied by the seller was equal to the samples, which was previously examined by the
buyer. However there was a latent defect, which was not discoverable by a reasonable examination,

Held: The seller was in breach of the implied condition.

Sara, a model, consulted a famous hair stylist for her opinion on the most suitable hair care
product that would make her hair shining and healthy. Two weeks after using the product supplied
by the stylist, she suffered a serious problem of dandruff and hair loss. Her hair was her main asset
to her modelling career. Sara now wishes to bring legal action against the hair stylist under the
contract of sale of goods. Advise Sara

Law

Section 2 s58

S7/8 s59(1)

S15
S16

S41(2)

Issue

Sara can sue hair stylist for the damages

Is it hair stylist authorise agent of the product

Law

S.2 interpretation under mersatile agent

S16 a) implied condition us to quantity or fdness

S.7 good purchashing before making of contract

Apply

Under S.2 interpretation ‘mercantile agent’ it is a person act like seller ___ have authority either to
sell good. For this case stylist is not the authorise agent. She just stylist without knowledge of the
product and she recommend the product based on her opinion

Section 17 describe contract for the sale at specific use. The seller doesn’t have knowledge of the
specific product doesn’t know the effect of the product or would he the content of product until the
product leave on sara hair.

S.16 a) impled condition as to quality or fitness describe the buyer makes known to the sellers the
particular purpose for which the good are required. For this case it can be said that the buyer or sara
didn’t mention about any sensitivity of her hair until leave a damages this section give opportunity to
hair stylist to win this case. This case similar to Griffiths v Peter Conway LTD . the court held a
woman with an unusual sensitive skin who bought a tweeted coat, without disclosing her sensitivity
to the seller, did not succeed under this section [s.16(1]a] because the coat would not harm a
normal person.

S.7 good purchasing before making of contract, back to S.16a without mentioning about her
sensitivity the hair stylist cant recommend fit product but when hair stylist show a product based on
her opinion and Sara agree with that product without known the effect it ___ opportunity to hair
stylist win the case.
Conclusion, in contract sale of good act 1957 most of act win by her stylist side, it clear that sara cant
to bring legal action because she doesn’t mentioning about the sensitivity just mentioning about
want shining and healty hair but sara still have opportunity to refer at consumer protection act 1999