Legal Counsel: Understanding Your Rights Regarding ARCO Ltd's Cooker

SW Law LLP

15–19 Parnell Road

Truro

Cornwall, TR1 9KL

Date: 2 October 2020

Reference: SW.DS.CAL/DuP 123456

Subject: ARCO Ltd.

I am write your name. Mr Daljit Singh has instructed me to take this matter forward with you. This letter will set out our legal advice for your situation.

Background

We are aware of the events that have occurred at your restaurant due to the use of the cooker supplied by Arco Ltd. We understand the events have caused your restaurant significant physical and reputation damage to your restaurant. In this regard, we are addressing the relevant legal concerns in this letter.

Legal issues

1. Whether Arco Ltd will be liable for the defective cooker?

2. If yes, what are your options of remediation?

Summary of advice

Your current situation is governed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In a sale of goods, it is implied that the goods will correspond with the description in case of a sale by description (Section 13(1)). Such goods will be of satisfactory quality. It must meet the quality of appearance and finish, free from minor defects, safe, durable, and fit for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied (section 4(2)).

In the current matter, it must be demonstrated that there is a contract for sale of the cooker. The fact that you and Mr. Joan Taylor orally agreed for the sale and purchase of the cooker over the telephone conversation is a proof of the contract. This proof is supported by the invoice of the cooker.

In regard to the first issue, you must note that the fact that the oral agreement and the invoice do not describe the cooker indicates that the sale was not by description of the goods. However, as per section 4(2), ARCO must have had supplied the cooker of satisfactory quality. The cooker has electrical defect, as is evidenced by the statement of the Chief Fire Officer. The fire incident proofs that the cooker was not safe. The fact the defect became apparent on long use on the opening day proofs that it is not durable. All these events including the delays in the kitchen and customer services are proofs that the cooker is not reasonably fit for the purpose it was bought. In the light of the circumstances, ARCO Ltd has breached the sale of contract and is liable for the defective cooker. If you are in need of law dissertation help, then our experts are there to provide you with the necessary help.

In regard to the second issue, as a buyer, you may reject the cooker or claim damages. However, since you had accepted the cooker when you had it installed and tested by an electrician, you can no longer reject the cooker. However, you can claim for compensation to enable you buy another cooker equivalent to the cooker supplied.

The current incidents could have been reasonable contemplated by you and ARCO Ltd that a defective cooker could cause such incidents. Accordingly and as per the legal principle held in Hadley v Baxendale, you may be entitled to recover loss including loss of profits for the weeks the restaurant is closed.

Next step

Pre-action protocol requires that before you commence litigation, parties in this matter must exchange relevant information in order to bring a negotiation. If resolution fails, you may commence litigation. In such your claim will be brought in the County Court, since your estimate shows that claim amount is less that £100,000.

We hope we have covered all your concerns in this letter. If you have any questions, please approach us and we will do our best to help you further.

Sincerely,

write your name

Continue your exploration of Managing and leading change with our related content.