Supply of Goods and Services Act (SGSA) 1982 - Essay
a) Ted should consider making a claim against Grandprince Ltd for breach of certain implied terms of the contract under the Supply of Goods and Services Act (SGSA) 1982.
This contract would be covered by the SGSA 1982, as it covers contracts which include the provision of goods and services, and contracts in which goods are supplied not sold. s.4 SGSA 1982 implies a term that the services are of "satisfactory quality", where the seller sells the goods in the course of business. The seller must meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price and all other relevant circumstances. As there is a large crack in the floor and wall of the conservatory, it is highly unlikely that it would be considered of satisfactory quality, by a reasonable person's standard. This is reinforced by the fact the surveyor says it will have to be demolished
There may also be a breach of s.13 SGSA 1982, which implies a term that the service will be carried out with "reasonable care and skill", where the supplier is acting in the course of business. Again, it could not be said that the service has been carried out with reasonable care and skill if the conservatory has to be knocked down and rebuilt.
Ted is entitled to be returned to the position he would have been in had the contract been properly performed i.e. he is entitled to loss of expectations under the contract. Exceptionally compensatory damages may be awarded. Ted should claim for the cost of rebuilding the conservatory to the appropriate standard.
Ted should also consider bringing a claim in the tort of negligence. Grandprince Ltd had a duty of care towards Ted and his property, when carrying out the works and he could argue the duty was breached by the service he received. He may, however, have difficulty establishing the loss caused. There are cracks in the wall but no loss has been differed yet. Ted would be advised to pursue claim in contract first as it is more likely to succeed on the facts and he will be covered by the s.75 Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 1974 (see part (b) below).
b) Ted may seek redress from his credit card company under the (CCA) 1974
CCA 1974 s.75(1) states that if a debtor has, under a "debtor-creditor supplier agreement", any claim against the supplier in respect of a breach of contract (or misrepresentation), he has a likely claim against the creditor Ted has a claim for breach of contract against GP Ltd, as established in part (a), so he could bring a claim under the CCA 1974.
Ted is the "debtor", as he is an individual receiving credit under a consumer credit agreement and the credit card company is the "creditor", as they provided credit under a "consumer credit agreement." CCA 1974 s.189(1) defines "consumer credit agreement" as a personal credit agreement by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit not exceeding £25,000. Ted's agreement was for £7,500 so the definition is satisfied.
The CCA 1974 does not apply to a claim for any item less than £100 or more than £30,000. The total cost of Ted's conservatory was £7,500 so clearly the CCA 1974 applies These provisions apply even if Ted was in breach of any term of the agreement. However, it must be noted that cards such as American Express and Diner's Club are exempted from the CCA 1974, so if Ted paid with these cards he cannot make this claim.
c) Ted may pursue a claim under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987.
"Product" includes any goods and so the sofa would be covered. According to s.3(1) CPA 1987 a product is defective if its safety is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect. Factors which will be considered include: (i) the manner in which it has been marketed; (ii) what reasonably might be expected to be done with the product; and (iii) the time when the product was supplied by its producer to another. Of particular relevance is (ii). We are told on the facts that Ted did not overload the sofa, so it appears he did not use the product in an unreasonable manner before it collapsed. The fact it collapsed indicates it was not of the standard of safety generally expected.
Ted must also show that there was damage caused, which is defined by s.5(1) CPA 1987 and includes death, personal injury and loss of or damage to property. In the accident, we are told Ted's trousers were ruined. Under s.5(4) CPA 1987 there can be no claim if the value of the property value does not exceed £275 (excluding interest). The value of Ted's trousers is unclear, so whether he can claim for this loss would be a question of fact. Ted also sustained a broken ankle, which would be covered as a personal injury under s.5(1) CPA 1987. Spring & Broadway Ltd will not, however, be liable for damage to the sofa itself.
If Ted's claim under CPA 1987 does not succeed, he could still bring an action in negligence against Spring & Broadway Ltd. To be awarded compensation he would have to show that Spring & Broadway Ltd had not taken reasonable care and that he, as a result had suffered loss, damage or injury because of the sofa.
Bibliography
Bermingham V. Tort Law Nutshells (6th Edition) Sweet & Maxwell: 2002
Duxbury R. Contract Law Nutshells (6th Edition) Sweet & Maxwell: 2003
Koffman L. & MacDonald E. The Law of Contract (4th Edition) Tolley: 2001
McKendrick E. Contract Law Palgrave (5th Edition) Law Master Series
Online resources
Halsbury's Laws
(www.butterworths.co.uk/halsburys/index.htm)
Westlaw
(http://www.westlaw.co.uk)
Legislation Direct
(www.butterworths.co.uk/legislation/index.htm)
BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk
Back to free law coursework
Please note: The above essays and dissertations were written by students and then submitted to us to display and help others. Thanks to all the students who have submitted their work to us.
Was this useful to you?
Did you find this article useful? Was the content up-to-date or do you have something to add? Give us your feedback and we'll make this site even better for you to use!
