Breach of Contract and Sales of Goods Act, 1979

THE CASE OF FOLI-8 LIMITED V. VENTON TOOL LIMITED

Document – 1

The petition filed before the Manchester District Registry, Queen’s Bench Division, High court of Justice in the case of Foli-8 Limited v. Venton Tool Limited, the particulars of claim essentially refers to the Sales of Good Act, 1979 of England and Wales. In the abovementioned case, the claimant i.e. Foli-8 Limited has sued Venton Tool Limited for breach of Contract under the Senior Courts Act, 1981 herein.

• In the first paragraph of the document – 1, it has been mentioned that the claimant is a registered company of England and Wales, thus the claimant hereby falls under the jurisdictions of Senior Courts Act, 1981, section 19 hereby and the provisions of Sales of Goods Act, 1979 shall be applicable to him.
• In the second and third paragraph of the abovementioned ‘particulars of claim’, it has been mentioned that according to clause 2 of the Contract agreed upon by both of the parties, the defendant has adhered to the quantitative clause under the Sales of Goods Act, 1979; however, as per the implied qualitative test mentioned under section 13 and 14 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979, the implied qualitative clause under the abovementioned contract has not been met. As per section 13 and 14 of the Act, 1979, section 14(2) and 14(2A) issues the need of an implied term of satisfactory quality to be met and that a reasonable person would consider them to be of satisfactory quality. Also, clause 3 of section 14 issues a need for the goods supplied to be of a reasonable fit for the purpose mentioned under the contract herein.
• As it has been mentioned under fifth paragraph herein, the quality of the products supplied by the defendant proved to be not a reasonable fit for the purpose of horticulture as it has been mentioned under the Contract herein. Under the details of such quality, it has been mentioned that the defendant has resorted to such materials that it proved to be toxic for trees (the same must be subjected to specific forensic toxicology report). Thus, it was impossible for the claimant to understand the quality of the goods unless it has been examined thoroughly and only in the long run, the qualitative test of the goods supplied could be measured by the claimant herein. Thus, the defendant cannot resort to section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979 i.e. the clause of sale by description. As it was impossible for claimant to understand the merchantable quality of the goods from just a sample, the defendant would be held liable for the breach of contract herein. Also, section 34 of the Act, 1979 provides Buyer’s right to examine, shall not be applicable herein as by surface examination, the merchantable quality of the goods cannot be ascertained herein. Section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979 shall govern the breach of contract herein. According to section 53, when the seller is accused of the breach of warranty due to any qualitative issue of the goods herein, he reserves the absolute right to reject the goods and “maintain an action against the seller for damages.”
• In the seventh paragraph, the particulars of loss have been ascertained by the loss of profit herein and the compensation given to the clients herein. According to section 53(3), the damages claimed by the claimant should be the prima facie difference between the “value of goods at the time of the delivery and the value of goods if the seller had fulfilled the warranty of quality herein”. In the case of Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] EWHC Exch. J70, it had been ascertained by the courts that the damages to be claimed under section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979 shall be ‘general damages’ i.e. losses arising naturally.

Thus, herein, it can be critically ascertained that, the causation between the losses incurred by the claimant and the breach of contract by the defendant might be too remote to prove in the natural course herein. Although they had an implied clause of adhering to the quality of the goods, it is hard to prove whether the death of the trees has been caused by the use of the defendant’s products or not. Unless and until the claimant raises a thorough forensic report on that specific issue to maintain the possible causation between the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’, it shall not fall under section 53 herein.

Document – 2

The second document herein is the statement of defense, filed by the defendant herein i.e. Velton Tool Limited. In the statement of defense herein, the defendant has admitted the presence of an implied qualitative test clause under clause 2 of the Contract herein. Hence, the defendant has admitted the presence of section 13 and 14 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979.

• In the third paragraph, it has been admitted by the defendant that the abovementioned goods are consisted of Chromium, nickel and copper. However, they have denied the causation established by the claimant between the quality of the products and the possible effect on the horticulture process herein.
• In the fourth paragraph, the defendant has stated that unless and until the goods used under an extreme condition where they are not suitable to use or unless and until the claimant has not maintained the ‘warnings’ of the goods to be used in certain conditions, the defendant shall not be liable under section 13 and 14 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979. Thus, if the seller has provided the buyer with sufficient grounds on which the products might act otherwise and has provided the buyer with possible ‘warnings’ for the usage of the particular products, it shall be presumed that the buyer shall have the knowledge of such descriptions under section 13 and 34 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1979. Section 34 herein states that the buyer has the right to examine the goods before accepting the delivery. While it is not possible for the buyer to understand the merchantable quality of the product which is not the surface quality of the product, the buyer must read the ‘usage warning’ of the goods and under this section, the buyer has a liability to accept the goods herein.
• In the fifth paragraph herein, if the claimant does not provide the defendant with any admissible forensic toxicology report to prove the causation between the breach of quality and the monetary loss suffered by the claimant herein, the defendant is not liable to provide the claimant with any damages under section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979. Section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979, essentially demands a correlation between the breach of quality and the loss suffered thereon by the claimant herein,

Thus, from the abovementioned discussion, it can be said that the whole point of dispute depends on the practical point whether enough causation exists between the quality of the goods delivered and the losses suffered by the claimant herein due to fault in the merchantable quality of the product. Section 53 of the Sales of Goods Act, 1979 essentially demands the causation between these two and the compensation to be received by the claimant shall be dependent on the abovementioned facts herein. Thus, the abovementioned section 35A stated in the document – 1 for the purpose of claiming interests on the damages shall be depended on the abovementioned causation effect herein.

In the case of Saipol SA v. Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWHC 2211, it was mentioned herein the importance of upholding the definition of section 53 in cases of Sales of Goods Act, 1979 in order to ascertain the damages herein.

Document – 3

The third document herein in relation to the abovementioned case of Foli-8 Limited v. Venton Tool Limited, the Witness statement given by Kevin Calculus shall be considered and assessed for the better understanding of the case herein.

• In the first paragraph, the witness has admitted the fact that, being a television personality, he receives an annual fee to endorse the defendant’s products on TV.
• In the second and third paragraph of the witness statement, he has enclosed his position of celebrity gardener and he has also mentioned the employment of the claimant herein in the month of December, 2019. He has also mentioned and provided with sufficient disclosure regarding the working of the claimant on the garden, he was appointed. The witness has certified the claimant’s work to be satisfactory and of extreme good quality during this time.
• In the fourth paragraph, the witness has stated the comments mentioned by the employees on site, namely, Dave Brewstar who made a conclusive comment on the products used by the claimant to be of the defendant’s and how he regards the tools of the Velton Tools Limited to be of very good quality and it provided the garden trees with good shape and structure herein.

Thus, from the abovementioned sections herein, it is to be mentioned that the witness had employed the claimant on December, 2019 and the tenure of the claimant under the witness has not been mentioned whatsoever. It has been mentioned in Document – 1 that the claimant entered into the Contract with Velton Tools Limited on September, 2020 and the same was not delivered to the claimant until 15th September, 2020. Thus, without any conclusive proof on the part of the witness that the tenure of the claimant was of one year or so, both of the information seems to be contradictory. Thus, it can be said that the Witness Statement by Kevil Calculus is not of reliable nature and the disparity in information provided by the witness and the claimant should be taken into consideration. Also, the witness has admitted the fact that he receives an endorsement fee from the Defendant. Thus, the creditability of the witness can be questioned by the court or the claimant herein regarding the quality of the product of the defendant herein. In the case of Excelerate Technology Ltd v Cumberbatch & Ors (Rev 1) [2015] EWHC 204 (QB), the question of witness creditability has been essentially reviewed. Although not much scope has been presented for the civil cases or liabilities arising out of civil monetary claims, it can be used by the claimant to discard the abovementioned witness which certainly favors the defendant herein with inconclusive proof herein.

THE CASE OF ANDREW O’FARRELL

Document – 4 & Document – 5

Document 4 and document 5 are two parts of one case of arrest on the charge of fraudulent claim of overtime pay committed by a store manager herein. After the store manager was taken into custody for committing fraud, the solicitor on behalf of the accused herein took his statement and statement has been recorded on behalf of the police constable who arrested the abovementioned store manager herein.

From the statement made by Andrew O’Farrell and the police record made by Alan Richards, the working police constable thereon, it can be assessed that Andrew O’Farrell had been accused of a fraud in relation to falsely accumulating overtime pay herein. On one fine evening, the area manager accused Andrew to be of fraud where Andrew admitted the fact that he has not done any overtime for a year in the company and thus, there is no question on his part to log into the overtime pay form herein.

The statement of Andrew O’Farrell essentially refers to the lack of any investigation done on behalf of the company before accusing him of the fraud. The area manager essentially held a private investigation without letting any employee know the nature of the investigation herein and concluded the abovementioned decision without letting the management department or the HR to know anything whatsoever. Also, the area manager worked on his own accord to accuse Andrew of committing a fraud herein under the Fraud Act, 2006 and called the police on him. Afterwards, Andrew was fired from the job herein.

• From the abovementioned statement of Andrew O’Farrell, it can be stated that the area manager i.e. the employer of Andrew worked against the Employment Rights Act, 1996 herein. Under section 98(1) of the Act of 1996, an employee can only be dismissed under fair dismissal grounds. In the case of alleging fraud herein, Andrew reserved the right to be known the nature of investigation going against him and he also reserves the right to sue the employer under wrongful termination as has been mentioned under section 94 & 95 of the Act of 1996 herein. Also, Andrew shall reserve the absolute right to seek help of ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service) to hold an arbitration proceeding with the employer to seek an investigation into his event of termination herein.
• In the latter part of the statement, Andrew has mentioned apart from the wrongful termination herein, the area manager of Andrew instantly called police on him and had him arrested. According to the provisions of the English Common Law and the Fraud Act, 2006, it is to be noted that Fraud is an offence which is bailable in nature. Thus, one can obtain a bail once he is charged or booked under the offence of fraud. According to Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, section 24 to 28 provides the police administrations with provisions and grounds to arrest a person without a warrant herein.
• According to section 24 to 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, it has been stated that the arresting officer, while arresting a person without any warrant should subject himself/herself to the below mentioned grounds herein:

1. The arresting officer must have enough suspicions, either from the behavior of the accused or the environment herein, to believe the fact that the accused has actually committed the abovementioned offence. This is also called the subjective test herein.

2. The arresting officer must have enough suspicion which depends on reasonable grounds herein. This is called the objective test herein.

3. The arresting officer must pass the test of necessity i.e. the arresting officer must have enough reasonable ground to believe that the accused might flee if not arrested right there.

4. As PACE provides the police administrations with a discretionary power to arrest, the arresting officer must have enough grounds to confirm that as well.

Thus, in the case of document – 4, it can be ascertained from the statements of Andrew that the Police officer arrested Andrew without any sufficient grounds as it has been mentioned under section 24 to 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. The statement of Andrew provides us with an impression that he was not trying to flee and he was only accused by the area manager who again refused to conduct a thorough investigation procedure to deduce the accused herein. Thus, it is safe to presume that the arresting officer herein had no reasonable grounds of suspicion to arrest Andrew O’Farrell at the store herein. Also, it is to be noted that fraud, being a bailable offence, requires the production of a warrant herein before a person can be arrested if not satisfied the abovementioned grounds mentioned under section 24 to 28 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984.

In reference to Document – 5, where Alan Richard, the arresting officer has recorded the arrest of Andrew O’Farrell and the interview herein to charge him under the fraud of the overtime pay.

In the abovementioned statement records by the arresting officer, it can be seen that only the objective details of the arrest has been mentioned. No conclusive proof or statements have been provided by the arresting officer herein to conclude the arrest of Andrew at the scene herein.

The arresting officer charged Andrew for fraud and took him before the custody officer as soon as the interview was over. Again, he has not mentioned any reasonable grounds to have the suspicion that Andrew committed the crime as it demands from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984. From the statement thereof, it is safe to presume that Andrew O’Farrell had been charged with fraud without proper investigation and the preparation of a charge sheet in accordance with the PACE has been skipped.

Thus, from the abovementioned discussion, it can be said that after combining both Document 4 and Document 5 herein, Andrew O’Farrell was wrongfully detained in the police station which violated his rights under the Human Rights Act, article 5 herein i.e. violation of liberty and security of a person. In most of the cases, the police relies on section 24(5)(e) i.e. “prompt arrest was necessary for the purpose of better investigation”, but in this instant document, the same has been mentioned in the police report as well. Hence, it is a clear case of wrongful detention and a wrongful arrest done by the arresting officer, Alan Richard.

In the case of Shaaban Bin Hussein v. Chong Fook Kam [1970] A.C. 942 (P.C), it was held that a “reasonable suspicion shall be more than a hunch and less than a proof”. Thus, the arresting officer must have collected some reasonable suspicion from the surrounding environment to arrest the person under the PACE, 1984.

Also, in the case of Buckley and Others v Chief Officer of the Thames Valley Police, CA 2 Apr [2009], it was held that if the accused herein provides a satisfactory explanation to the arresting officer or provides the arresting officer with some information which might be useful in the investigation of the alleged offence committed by the accused herein, the arresting officer is under a duty to take note of such comments and act upon it. From the statements of Andrew, it can be said that the arresting officer had no regard for the explanations or alibi given by the Andrew. Andrew had a simple alibi that he was with his wife and kids in France herein and thus the police officer is under a duty to check the alibi before convicting him. Although it can be seen from the statement of Andrew that he had previous records of conviction which might be used by the arresting officer to justify the arrest, no such explanation has been recorded by the arresting officer in his statement herein. Thus, it can be safely presumed that Andrew’s arrest was a wrongful detention which is in violation of article 5 of the Human Rights Act.

Take a deeper dive into Best Law Assignment Help Services in the UK with our additional resources.