Topic Review 4

Section B: Scenario-based Questions

Scenario 1

Ayda, a 21-year-old student went to a beauty counter to buy skincare products. She
approached the consultant at the counter and told the consultant that she has trouble finding
the right product to use on her very sensitive skin. The consultant advised her on several
products and showed her some of the available catalogues. While flipping through the
catalogues, Ayda was excited to see Sheila, her singing idol being featured as the face of
‘AURA’, a brand-new skin product recently launched in Malaysia. She told the consultant
that she wants the whole AURA set worth RM400. The consultant told Ayda that AURA is
more suitable for mature women with aging skin but Ayda insisted on buying the product.
Two days after using the product, her skin began to peel and blister, making it very painful.
Identify TWO (2) implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1957 that Ayda can use to
protect her rights as a buyer and discuss whether she can successfully claim against the
seller using the two implied terms.

Issue

The consultant explained to Elisa the benefits of Aura products, but she still purchased them
with the knowledge of that product is suitable for women over 40 with aging skin.

Rules

a) Merchantable Quality

There is a different purpose for each product. Those Aura products cater to different
groups. Women over 45 with aging skin will find Aura products useful. According to Seng
Hin V Arathoon & Sons Ltd case, as there was a discoloration on the tapioca flour, it was
claimed to be unfit for human consumption. However, testing revealed it contained no
ingredients that injurious to health. Plaintiff failed to prove that tapioca flour was un-
merchantable quality.
 b) Fit for Buyers Purpose

Elisa was told by the consultant that this product is suitable for mature women with aging
skin. However, Elisa was adamant about purchasing the product. A buyer must be
cautious in situations such as this. They have to bear the consequences if the buyer fails
to exercise caution. For example, in the case of Griffiths v Peter Conway, a women with
unusual sensitive skin purchased the Haris Tweed coat without informing about her skin
condition to the seller. Then she allegedly contracted dermatitis from wearing the coat.
The women could not succeed under this section because the coat would not harm a
normal person.

Application

In this case, Elisa cannot sue the Aura products because it clearly stated that it suitable for
mature women with aging skin. Hence, every product have different purpose and benefits.
Thus, Elisa should read the description as a buyer before purchase the product.

Conclusion

Therefore, the consultant does not went against the Sale of Good Act 1957 because
consultant already explained regarding the use of the Aura product that they sold. Elisa must
be cautious even though her idol endorse that product, as a buyer she should be
knowledgeable about the product and side effect of the particular product.