The nature of contract law is such that it creates rights and duties on the part of the contracting parties. These rights and duties originate from the contract of sale and also from the implied terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Taking cognizance of the facts in this case, any potential liability will stem from allegations of breach of duty. For any liability to arise from a breach of duty, the courts require the claimant to prove;
- that there existed a duty of care;
- that this duty was breached,
- that they suffered loss as a result of the breach, and;
- the proximity between the breach and the loss. [1]
Following these criteria, the first determination of the court will be whether there existed a duty of care implied by a seller-buyer relationship. The sale of goods act defines a seller as being; “a person who sells or agrees to sell goods” while a buyer means “a person who buys or agrees to buy goods.[2]” Based on the foregoing definition it is clear that there existed a buyer and seller contractual relationship.
Therefore, in this case, liability would arise from a breach of the terms of the contract as well as a breach of the implied terms contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Of key importance in this determination is that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 seeks to protect buyers from unscrupulous sellers by providing explicit terms that ought to be fulfilled. Based on the facts presented, it is clear that the buyer seller relation created an implied obligation to sell goods that are of satisfactory quality. This means that the goods must meet the standard that a reasonable man would expect, considering the description of the goods and the price. To meet these standards, the goods ought to be safe to use for their intended purpose, durable, and fit for the intended purpose.
As such, in light of the potential liability claim by Marshall and Evren, the primary concern should be whether the dye sold meets the standard that a reasonable man would expect in regards to safety and fitness for purpose. Any failure to meet these implied terms automatically triggers liability.
Secondly, in regards to the limitation of liability clause in the contract, it is imperative to note that a limitation of liability works to limit liability claims paid to a claimant if they suffered a loss as a result of a breach of contract. However, the enforceability of the limitation of liability clause is not absolute and is subject to the reasonable test. More so, it is imperative to note that limitation of liability clauses are not enforceable if the breach in question arises out of implied terms as envisaged by the Sale of Goods act 1979. [3]
As a result, if the court were to find liability arising out of the breach an expressly implied term, the limitation of liability clause will not apply. Hence the court’s determination will not be bound by the limitation of liability clause in the contract. This is because the expressly implied terms are specifically intended to protect the public from any adverse sections of a sale of goods contract which left unregulated, would be used to occasion injustices on innocent buyers.[4] This conclusion is further justified by the fact that the contents of the limitation of liability clause were not expressly provided in the wording of the package. The mere fact that consumers were referred to the additional terms via a notice in small print to the effect that further terms and conditions apply as contained in the website fails to meet the sufficient notice requirement for contract law. As such, the limitation of liability is alien to the contract and hence not applicable.
In lieu of the foregoing, please ascertain that the dye doesn’t cause a skin rash or have the effect of damaging the fabric. More so, it is important to amend labels to ensure that the limitation of liability clause is clearly indicated.
Lola Smith
Birkbeck, University of London
07503614783
londonsway4@gmail.com
