Contracts

   

   A lot of consumer law is the basic contract law. The consumer must show that he had a contract
   with the supplier of goods or services, show that the buyer is in breach of this agreement,
   and convince the supplier that he would have a good chance of winning if he took the case to
   court. Contracts between businesses are usually full of detailed agreements, but everyday
   transactions involving private individuals are more informal. Very little is written down or
   even spoken, and the consumer must show that a contract has been implied by law. To help him
   there are consumer laws implying certain terms into consumer agreements.

   In English law, for example, the 1979 Sale of Goods Act implies a term that the seller has a
   right to sell. This protects the honest buyer from a seller who had no right to sell goods
   because they had been stolen. Another implied term is that goods correspond to any description
   given to the buyer. Another is that they be of "merchantable quality" - but this only applies
   if the seller is in business. When buying from a private seller the buyer may have to rely on
   express terms about quality. The 1982 Supply of Goods and Services Act implies similar terms
   regarding services. It also implies that services must be provided with reasonable care at a
   reasonable cost and within a reasonable time. In deciding what is reasonable an English court
   will refer to similar previous cases. However, the most important guideline is usually common
   sense in the context of the transaction in question.

   

   Where goods are concerned, the implied terms are conditions.

   This means that the buyer has the right to discharge the contract - to refuse the goods - if
   the terms are breached. He may also be entitled to damages. But where services are concerned,
   the implied terms are intermediate stipulations. This means that the consumer may only refuse
   the services if this is reasonable in the circumstances. The court may decide that he must
   accept work which has been done, but award him damages where the work has been done badly or
   too slowly or at too high a cost.

   

   A difficult problem in consumer law is deciding who is responsible when goods are lost in
   delivery or delivered late. If no express agreement has been made about this, the Sale of
   Goods Act provides complicated rules. In general, the buyer has no responsibility until the
   time he takes possession of the goods. If goods arrive late be may be able to discharge the
   contract (refuse delivery) if he can show that time was of the essence (of vital importance).
   Sometimes this is implied by the nature of the transaction – for example, a contract to
   deliver fresh food or newspapers. In other cases, the consumer may make time of the essence by
   specifying a time for delivery. In the 1950 case of Richards vs. Oppenheimer, the buyer of a
   car continued to ask for delivery even after the date in the contract had passed. This implies
   that that he had given up (waived) his right to discharge the contract for late delivery.
   However, he then gave the supplier another 30 days to deliver. Time was once again of essence
   and when the car was finally delivered more than 30 days later the buyer was entitled to
   refuse the car and to refuse to pay any money.

   

                                                                            Law Today, pp. 83 -84