Machine Against Machines Wannabi Employees-Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Machine Against Machines Wannabi Employees? Answer: Introducation The present case is based on the Sale of Goods Act of Fiji and to certain extent; the rights of the consumers have also been attracted here. Under the provision of the Sale of Goods Act, it has been mentioned that the term goods includes any chattels that are to be used in personal way or for trading purpose[1]. There are a number of provisions mentioned under the arena of Sale of Goods Act, which are providing necessary rules for the proper use of goods and services. There are provisions regarding the rights and duties of the buyer and the seller and certain conditions that are necessary for the sale of the goods[2]. Division 8 of the Sale of Goods Act deals with the performance of the contract. The rules regarding the delivery of goods have been mentioned here in a systematic way. Certain rights are given to the buyer regarding the goods in this chapter. The Act has given power to the buyers to examine the goods before use and the necessary provision regarding the same has been men tioned under section 35 of the Act[3]. According to section 35, if in any case, the buyer had not examined the goods that he purchased, the law gives him an opportunity to examine the same after the purchase. It has been mentioned that until the buyer examines the product, it will be presumed that the buyer does not accept the same[4]. It is also the duty of the seller to give the buyer an opportunity to examine the product. After examining the product, if the buyer thinks that the product meets all the requirements, then he will accept the same under section 36 of the Sale of Goods Act[5]. In this case, certain principles of the Consumer law will also applicable. Under the Consumer law, it has been stated that if a consumer buys some product and later comes to know that the product is a disputed one, he has every right to return the goods to the manufacturer or to the seller. He can file a complaint before the Consumer council of Fiji regarding the same. He can claim damage regarding the same and he may get the full refund as against the alleged product. However, there are certain rules stated under the Consumer Law. It has been stated that the consumer owes the burden of proof and it is his responsibility to collect all the evidences regarding the truthfulness of the allegation made by him. In this case, it has been observed that Mr. Spin had signed a document during the time of buying the machine without knowing the conditions stated therein. In this case, certain provisions of the contract law have also been applied. In LEstrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, it was held that when an able bodied person signs a document, it will be deemed that he put his signature after understanding all the criteria of the document[6]. The same principle had applied in the case of Fiji development Bank v Raqona [1984] 30 FLR 151. However, there are certain exclusion clauses mentioned under the Contract law of Fiji. As per this doctrine, a person can be excluded from his liability regarding the signed documents if the below points are fulfilled: Under the law of Fiji, there are three conditions where the principle of exclusion clause will not be applied[7]. If fraud has been done as against a person and he had signed the document based on the facts, the provision regarding the exclusion clause will be applied. Another ground is misrepresentation. In Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805, plaintiff was misrepresented by the shopkeeper who had hide the fact that there are certain clauses regarding the liability of the shopkeeper to certain extent[8]. After signing the slip, when the plaintiff regarding the matter has found certain disputes, it was contended by the defendant that plaintiff had already signed the slip that containing the facts that the shopkeeper will not be liable for any dispute regarding the product. The last rule is on Non Est Factum. In Gallie v lee another [1971] AC 1004, it was held that if there is differences occurred regarding the contractual product and the substances of the same. Application: Therefore, from the above mentioned stand points, it should be kept in mind that the applicability of the rules mentioned above has certain strong sides. In the present case, Mr. Spin had bought a machine from Winnabi Machines and one of the employees of the company showed the same. The employee told Mr. Spin about the modernization of the machine and showed the usage of the same. Mr. Spin had agreed to the offer and buy the machine from the company and bring the same to his company. However, at the time of the purchasing the same, the machine was not examined by him[9]. Rather, he had to fill up a form regarding the purchase without noticed the conditions stated there. When he installed the machine, he found that the product is different than that he ordered and the product is quite old in nature. It has also been observed by him that there are certain complications present in the machine and it is hard to tackle the same. The outcome of the machine has created a negative impact on the productivity of the company owned by Mr. Spin. After an allegation made by Spin, the company told that he himself had signed the documents where certain provisions were mentioned regarding the liability of the company and therefore, he has no right to go against the company. According to the principle of section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act, the buyer has a right to examine the product after he purchased the same. It has been observed by the case that Mr. Spin had not examined the product after purchasing the same. It is also the duty of the seller to let the buyer examined the product and gives him an opportunity regarding the same. However, in the present case, Mr. Spin did not get any opportunity to examine the product and therefore, it can be stated that there is a violation regarding the breach of section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act observed. The principle laid down under the consumer law has also been applicable here. It is clear that the machine showed by the employee of Wannabi machines was different than that of the machine purchased by him[10]. The employee was showed a modern machine and the product bought by Mr. Spin was not modern. Perhaps, it was difficult to operate the machine and he had to face a lot of problem due to the sharp blades of the machine. The outcome of it had created a negative impact on the business of Mr. Spin. Under the Consumer law of Fiji, it has been stated that any consumer can bought an action as against the seller or the manufacturer if the product served by them is a disputed one. In the matter of the undersigned document of the product, it can be stated that it was the duty of the seller to make the buyer aware of the conditions that are stated in the slip and therefore, if there is a laxity regarding the same has happened, the provision of the exclusion clause will not be applied. According to the principle laid down under the case of Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co [1951] 1 KB 805, it can be said that it is the liability of the seller to narrate the exclusion clauses to the buyer[11]. If the seller had failed to meet the requirements properly, the acts of the seller will be treated as of misrepresentation in nature. Conclusion: Therefore, from the above-mentioned facts and the case laws, it can be stated that the case is attracting several principles laid down under the Sale of Goods Act, Contract Act and Consumer law. The interest of the buyer is protected by several legislatures in Fiji. However, in the present case, certain advices are required as per the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. It can be stated that Mr. Spin has every right to claim damages from the company as the company violated the provision of section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act. In this case, buyer has all the opportunities to return the disputed product to the company and seek for refund of the money or to claim for damage from the alleged company[12]. References Bakshi, P. M. "41_The Sale of Goods Act, 1930." (2016). Bourrel, Marie, et al. "Building in-country capacity and expertise to ensure good governance of the deep sea minerals industry within the Pacific region."Marine Policy(2017). DeWitt, Helen. "Candide's Garden: A Parable."Dissent61.4 (2014): 36-37. Fried, Charles.Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. Khatri, Bhumika. "Getting the definition of'consumer'right-Worrying about the smaller ones in Fiji." (2016). Krhmer, Daniel, and Roland Strausz. "Optimal sales contracts with withdrawal rights."The Review of Economic Studies82.2 (2015): 762-790. Laemmli, Thomas.Transfer of ownership in international sales of goods. Diss. University of Cape Town, 2014. McGee, Andrew. "The Reform of English Insurance Law-Attracting Business in the 21st Century."Asian Bus. Law.16 (2015): 73. Moscatelli, Alberto. "The struggle for control."Nature nanotechnology8.12 (2013): 888-890. Naidu, Suwastika, R. D. Pathak, and Anand Chand. "11. Towards a double triangle model of socially desirable HRM practices and firm performance in small-island developing states."Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management: A Diversity Perspective(2014): 192. Stewart Firth, Firth, Jon Fraenkel, and V. Lal Brij.The 2006 military takeover in Fiji: a coup to end all coups?. ANU Press, 2013. Yeung, Horace, and Flora Huang. "Certainty Over Clemency: English Contract Law in the Face of Financial Crisis."The Effects of Financial Crises on the Binding Force of Contracts-Renegotiation, Rescission or Revision. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 285-305.v [1] Bakshi, P. M. "41_The Sale of Goods Act, 1930." (2016). [2] Naidu, Suwastika, R. D. Pathak, and Anand Chand. "11. Towards a double triangle model of socially desirable HRM practices and firm performance in small-island developing states."Corporate Social Responsibility and Human Resource Management: A Diversity Perspective(2014): 192. [3] Bourrel, Marie, et al. "Building in-country capacity and expertise to ensure good governance of the deep sea minerals industry within the Pacific region."Marine Policy(2017). [4] Khatri, Bhumika. "Getting the definition of'consumer'right-Worrying about the smaller ones in Fiji." (2016). [5] Laemmli, Thomas.Transfer of ownership in international sales of goods. Diss. University of Cape Town, 2014. [6] Fried, Charles.Contract as promise: A theory of contractual obligation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2015. [7] McGee, Andrew. "The Reform of English Insurance Law-Attracting Business in the 21st Century."Asian Bus. Law.16 (2015): 73. [8] Yeung, Horace, and Flora Huang. "Certainty Over Clemency: English Contract Law in the Face of Financial Crisis."The Effects of Financial Crises on the Binding Force of Contracts-Renegotiation, Rescission or Revision. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 285-305.v [9] Krhmer, Daniel, and Roland Strausz. "Optimal sales contracts with withdrawal rights."The Review of Economic Studies82.2 (2015): 762-790. [10] Stewart Firth, Firth, Jon Fraenkel, and V. Lal Brij.The 2006 military takeover in Fiji: a coup to end all coups?. ANU Press, 2013. [11] Moscatelli, Alberto. "The struggle for control."Nature nanotechnology8.12 (2013): 888-890. [12] DeWitt, Helen. "Candide's Garden: A Parable."Dissent61.4 (2014): 36-37.