UCTA Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

UCTA - Case Study ExampleThe delivered car was found to be gravely defective and it evidently required repairs that would cost around a 1000. The practice prevailing in doubting Thomas Co was that it always offered its customers the opportunity to purchase a two years service press practical application parts and labour on cars purchased from them. metalworker Co had always declined such offers from Thomas Co. The remedies available to the Smith Co, under the statute, are discussed hereunder.A bless is an pledge giving rise to obligations which are enforced or recognised by law. The factor which distinguishes contractual from other legal rights is that they are based on the agreement of the contracting parties. It is important to bear in mind that every breach of a contract allows the complainant a remedy at law.The Sale of Goods Act states that consumers tolerate been defined as people purchasing for purposes unrelated to their trade, business or profession. prick 12(1) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, defines a consumer and this has trio elements, the party dealing as a consumer must neither make the contract in the socio-economic class of business nor hold himself out as doing so the other party must make the contract in the course of business and finally, if the contract involves the transfer of goods, then they must be of a figure ordinarily supplied for nonpublic use or consumption.The burden of proving that a ... Several similar purchases had been do before. The contract excluded liability for breach of certain statutory implied terminal figures and the exclusion clause was contentedness to section 6 of the UCTA. The Court of Appeal held that the purchase of the car was only incidental to the companys business activity, which meant that the purchase was not made in the course of business and so the plaintiff company was dealing as a consumer. olibanum the defendant could not exclude liability for the breach of implied terms1. Simil arly, in our case the car was purchased for both private and business use. Hence, the status of the claimant arouse be considered as that of a consumer according to this act and the judgment in the above case. In Stevenson v Rogers the Court of Appeal held that a sale to a person who had no business connection to the seller would be considered a consumer2. Hence, in our case Smith Co can be considered as a consumer, since they had purchased the car for the private and business purposes of its director, this is in conformity with the broader view interpreted by the Appellate Court in respect of the term consumer in the case Stevenson v Rogers.Section 3 of the UCTA covers a number of different types of exclusions or restrictions in respect of liability and makes them all subject to the test of reasonableness. These tests are of four types and apply to the different types of exclusions. These are, first, in relation to a contract term the clause should have been fair and reasonable to have been included, having regard to the circumstances, and which could reasonably be expected to have been known to the parties. Second, contracts in relation to goods (section 6 and 7 UCTA) and section 11(2) and schedule 2 of the UCTA have specify five matters