✔ 最佳答案
先要清楚
sales of good 的條例先
s.14
title (你有冇權sales出去)
s.15
description(描述)
即，老闆，如果叫你講返d貨
同實物唔同
s.16(3)
fitness
for 個人目的
s.16(2)
merchantable quality
可銷售質素
s.17
sales by sample
如果 Breach(違約是以上原因)
咁你就可以
Reject the goods
accept goods, claim damages
partial acceptance(reject the other )
如果你咁講
爭議就是s16(2)
merchantable quality
Section 16(2) provides that ' Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied condition that the goods supplied under the contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no such condition :
a. as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made: or
b. if the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, as regards defects which that examination ought to reveal'
Good are of merchantable quality within the meaning of SOGO if they are-
a. as fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought;
b. of such standard of appearance and finish;
c. as free from defects (including minor defects);
d. as safe: and
e. As durable
Conditions tend to be vital terms of he contract which go to the root of the contract.
Coniditions impose obligations into the contract which, if breached, entitle the injured party to claim a total failure of the contract and to repudiate that contract.
A warranty is a less vital term of a contract which is merely collateral to the main rerms.
咁你這個case
就可能是
b. of such standard of appearance and finish;
c. as free from defects (including minor defects);
因為佢做得唔好
仲有，你是冇啦啦頭頂果粒 "的"唔見左
一般人的使用用途?
你用咗來做咩?
平常人咁用，咁就以claim 賠償
2007-02-15 15:49:29 補充：
我應該直接搵消費者委員會投訴嗎,搵消委會之前我要做d乜?搵公正行有用嗎?還是我應該去甚麼地方去追討?可以搵消費者委員會不過，你話法律理論聽，佢受，就得啦因為好煩如果要case支持，都有
2007-02-15 15:51:47 補充：
In Rogers v Parish (Scarbourough ) Ltd (1987) 2 AAL ER 232, it was held that the plaintif was entitled to his money back when a new car he had bought had a number of faults. The garage had attempted to put right the faults but after six months the plaintiff rejected the car.
