Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The case of Raymond Smith illustrates the conflict which can arise after signing the contract of sales. The major peculiarity of this problem lies in the following: the seller of the car officially disclaimed any liability for the injuries and repair costs caused by defects in the vehicle. A month later the buyer, Raymond Smith, received serious injuries due to the damage in the steering mechanism. The most important task is to determine what would happen if Smith sues the dealer for the breach of warranty. Overall, it is hardly possible to give a conclusive answer to this question because much would depend on the specific circumstances.
To analyze this situation, we should first define sales and lease contracts and identify the major components. As Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) states the contract of sales is the agreement according to which a seller passes the title to a specific good to the purchaser for a specific reward (The American Law Institute, § 2-106, unpaged). A leasing agreement implies practically similar terms with the exception that the lease is temporary. It should be borne in mind these types of contracts “impose an obligation on each participant that the others expectation of receiving due performance will not be impaired” (Beatson & Friedmann, 505). In other words, each person receives what he expects to receive. We can apply this principle to the case. Raymond Smith hoped to acquire a new and well-functioning car but his expectations were not fully met. This is one of the reasons why disclaimers of the dealer may be treated as unlawful.
In this respect, we need to discuss such a notion as the warrant of implied merchantability. The term merchantability can be interpreted as the suitability of the product for a particular purpose (The American Law Institute, § 2A-213). If we are speaking about cars or any other vehicles we should also mention such criteria as safety. Naturally, the dealer did not give any express warranty but contracts of sale usually imply this warranty. Scholars call it a reasonable expectation (Jennings, 426). This example indicates that Raymond Smiths expenses should be compensated.
However, this case cannot be discussed only from the perspective of the buyer. We need to consider the dealers standpoint. He may argue that that the defect in the steering mechanism was caused by the clients actions and under such a scenario the clients claims would be groundless and he will be eligible for no legal remedies. So, it is quite probable that Raymond Smith would receive no indemnity. To give a definite answer to this question, we also need to know whether the dealer has specified that the car had a defect. If he did so, his disclaimers are fully legal. Raymond Smith cannot be considered as a “good faith customer” because he was informed about the hypothetical problem. Again, we do not know these details; this is why it is rather difficult to predict the outcomes of the trial.
Thus, we can conclude that existing legislation does not offer precise guidelines for such cases. Most likely, Raymond Smith will be able to withstand his rights in court because there was an implied warranty of merchantability. But, there is also a great likelihood that his suits will be of no use. This can happen if the damage was due to his fault or the dealer warned him about the problem with the car. In this paper, we have just identified the major facts which should be taken into account by the participants of sales contracts, lawyers, and judges to avoid or settle such disputes.
Works Cited
Beatson, Jack & Friedmann, Daniel. Good faith and fault in contract law. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Jennings, Marjanne. Business: its legal, ethical, and global environment. Cengage Learning, 2005.
The American Law Institute. Uniform Commercial Code. Cornell University Law School, 2004.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.