UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA KAMPUS PUNCAK ALAM,

SELANGOR

LAW416 BUSINESS LAW

SEMESTER MARCH - AUGUST 2022

ASSESSMENT 3 - SALES OF GOODS

PREPARED BY:

NO. NAME MATRIC ID

1. FATIN NAZURAH BINTI JAMIL 2022930645

2. NUR AINA SHAFIQAH BINTI KAMARUDIN 2022900545

3. SITI ZAKIRAH BINTI MOHD YAIDIN 2022901127

4. AREFFA NORLYANA BINTI SUHAIMI 2022961607

GROUP:
LAW416-BA11 (GROUP 6)

PREPARED FOR:
MADAM ZUHAIRA NADIAH BINTI ZULKIPLI

DATE SUBMISSION:
17 JULY 2022
QUESTION
Irene went to Cantikmuka, a shop selling cosmetic products, to buy a set of blusher. The sales
assistant, Janet recommended a particular type of blusher, said to be the best in the market and
imported from France.

Irene told Janet that she was suffering from dermatitis, a skin disease that made her skin very
sensitive. Janet told Irene that the blusher was suitable for her and relying on Janet’s expertise,
Irene bought the blusher.

Unfortunately, when Irene used it for the very first time, nasty rashes appeared on her face.
Irene now intends to sue Janet and Cantikmuka.

Advise Irene on the matter. Support your answer with law cases and relevant legislation.

ANSWER
PARAGRAPH 1: ISSUE
Whether Irene's intention could legally sue Janet and Cantikmuka?

PARAGRAPH 2: LAW

DEFINITION:
The definition of the contract of sale of goods according to Section 4(1) of the Sale of
Goods Act 1957 is a contract of sale of goods is a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees
to transfer property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration called the price. Therefore,
in the contract of the sale of goods, there must be the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the
property in goods, the goods available, and there is a price. Besides, the terms contract of sale
includes both a sale and agreement to sell. In addition, the purpose of the contract of sale is
transfer of ownership of the goods to the buyer for a money consideration. Furthermore, the
sale is completed when the ownership or ‘property in goods’ passes to the buyer. The parties
of the contract of the sale of goods involved seller and buyer. A seller is someone who sells or
agrees to sell goods, whereas a buyer is someone who buys or agrees to buy goods.

SECTIONS:
 According to Section 4(1) Sales of Goods Act 1957, it stated that sale of goods applies
to contracts whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer property in goods to the buyer for
a price. In addition, according to Section 2 of the Sales of Goods Act 1957, goods are defined
as every kind of movable property other than actionable claim and money, and includes stocks
and shares, growing crops, grass and ‘things attached to or forming part of the land which are
agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. Besides, according to Section
5(2), a contract of sale of goods may be made in writing, by word of mouth, or partly in writing
and partly in by word of mouth or may be implied from the conduct of the parties. Furthermore,
according to Section 16(1)(a) stated that if the goods are sold in the course of business and the
buyer expressly or impliedly must take known the purpose for which he requires the goods,
there is an implied condition that the goods supplied will be reasonably fit for that purpose.

CASES:
Referring to the case of Priest v Last (1903), the fact of the case is the plaintiff
purchased a hot-water bottle from the defendant in a retail pharmacy. The issue involved when
the plaintiff demanded a hot water bottle from the defendant, a chemist, who gave her a bottle
labelled "hot water only, not boiling water." The plaintiff's wife was injured after a few days
of using the bottle when it burst. The court held that hot-water bottles have only one purpose
in the ordinary course of events. Thus, there was breach of implied condition that the bottle fit
for its purpose.
Additionally, referring to the case of Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939), the fact of
the case is the plaintiff purchased a Harris Tweed coat, a tailor-made coat, from the defendants.
The issue involved because the plaintiff failed to disclose that she had dermatitis, an unusually
sensitive skin to goat's fur, and allergy skin. However, the coat would not have affected other
people. The court held that the plaintiff's action failed because the coat would not harm a
normal person and failed to disclose about her sensitive skin to the defendant.
Furthermore, referring to the case of Frost v Aylesbury (1905), the fact of the case is
the buyer bought some milk from the defendant milk suppliers. The sellers took all precautions
known at the time to keep the milk free from germs but this particular milk contained typhoid
germs. The issue involved when the buyer’s wife drank the milk and died of typhoid. The court
held that the defendant was liable for breach of Section 16(1)(a) as the milk was not fit for
human consumption.
PARAGRAPH 3: APPLICATION
 The law is relevant to Irene and Janet's situation because it corresponds to one of the
implied terms of the contract of sale of goods which is an implied condition as to fitness for a
particular purpose.
The definition of goods is as every kind of movable property other than actionable claim
and money, and includes stocks and shares, growing crops, grass and things attached to or
forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of
sale. Therefore, according to Irene and Janet's circumstances, the goods are a blusher.
The general rule of implied condition as to fitness for a particular purpose is the buyer
must exercise caution when making a purchase in terms of the quality of the goods purchased.
The rule is known as caveat emptor, which means that buyers must beware. The buyer is
expected to be conscientious or bear the consequences of being unable to make a claim against
the seller. Besides, the seller is not liable if the goods are not fit for purpose or do not meet the
buyer's standards of quality. However, the caveat emptor general rule has an exception in the
form of disclosure of purpose.
It is a crystal clear case where Irene and Janet’s situation is suitable under the Section
16 (1)(a) because Irene had already informed Janet that she had dermatitis, a skin disease that
made her skin extremely sensitive, before Janet continued to insist that the blusher was
appropriate for Irene. Thus, this has proven that despite being aware of Irene's skin disease,
Janet insists on Irene purchasing the blusher. According to Section 16 (1)(a), which explains
that if the goods are sold in the course of business and the buyer expressly or implicitly informs
the seller of the purpose of his requiring the goods based on the buyer's suitability, there is an
implied condition that the goods supplied will be suitable for that particular purpose. Therefore,
this demonstrates that the buyer relied on the seller's skill and judgement, either expressly or
impliedly.
Case of Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939) is relevant to Irene and Janet's case
because both plaintiffs, Griffiths and Irene, have sensitive skin to certain products. However,
Griffiths failed to disclose to Peter Conway Ltd that she had unusually sensitive skin, rendering
the plaintiff unable to pursue a claim against the defendant. Furthermore, another solid
reference, in the case of Frost v Aylesbury (1905), the defendant was liable for breach of
Section 16 (1)(a) as the plaintiff had already taken all precautions to keep the milk germ-free,
but had no idea it contained typhoid germs. Based on Irene and Janet’s situation, Janet insists
on Irene purchasing the blusher despite being aware of Irene's skin disease. Therefore, the
blusher was unfit for a specific purpose according to Irene's specifications, and Janet was liable
for breach of one of the implied terms of the contract of sale of goods.
PARAGRAPH 4: CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Irene is legally entitled to sue Janet and Cantikmuka.