Commerical LAW: Case on the dispute between an supplier of chemical product and the user who was injured during the process of these chemical product.

Essay by inocheatingUniversity, Bachelor's May 2004

download word file, 7 pages 3.0

Downloaded 95 times

Question 2.

Heidi might have claims against Acidic Pty Ltd in this matter under these possible actions.

1. Breach of contract

Heidi clearly has a contract with Acidic Pty Ltd. The formation of that particular contract was on 1st July 2002, when Heidi ordered ZX10 and Acidic agrees to delivery it on 3rd July 2002.

To claim damages or seek any other remedy for breach of contract, the terms of the contact have been breached must be established. This appears to be a non-consumer contract. On this contact, the implied terms have been breached. However there is arguably an exemption clause in this contract, but only Goods Act 1958 (Vic) can be used here.

a. Which Act

In this case, although it's not stated how much the goods cost, it is clear that ZX10 is not used for personal domestic or household uses. TPA does not apply where the buyer is not a consumer.

Therefore the Goods Act applies.

b. Which terms have been breached

Of the terms implied under the VGA, the implied by s 19(a), that the goods be fit for purpose, appears to have been breached. Fitness for purpose is defined under 19(b) clearly.

In Heidi's case, Heidi has many past dealings with Acidic Pty Ltd. This may prove that Heidi may have impliedly made know to the seller the purpose for which the good were required. ZX10 was required to make porcelain roses and before it's used it's necessary to wash the ampoules in hot water so as to remove the labels. However, the implied term in the contract was breached when ZX10 during the requirement procedure exploded on contact with hot water when it's ampoules break. ZX10 and the ampoules are not fit for which it's purpose, when it was processed. The fault was that...