On 1 November 2019, Billy, who worked as a banker, returned from Japan for business trip with his luggage in the Hong Kong Airport. There was a long queue for taxi, so he decided to take the airport shuttle bus to meet an important client, Success Ltd., concerning a loan arrangement for the merger and acquisition. Because Billy was in a hurry, he left his luggage in the shuttle bus. The luggage contained his proposal and some business documents related to Success Ltd. which were important and confidential. Billy was extremely nervous to get his luggage back and put an advertisement in a local newspapers. The advertisement mentioned that he was willing to pay a reward of HK$20,000 to any person who returned the luggage to him. To show his sincerity, Billy also deposited HK$5,000 as deposit in the bank account. This has also been referred in the newspapers advertisement.
David, the shuttle bus driver, found Billy’s luggage in the shuttle bus, went to the address printed on the tag of the luggage, and returned the luggage to Billy, without reading the advertisement. Billy was very delighted that his luggage was returned and gave David HK1,000 as a reward for his help. David subsequently read the newspapers advertisement and now wants to claim the HK$20,000 reward. Billy refused to pay and said that David was not entitled to the reward. In fact, Billy would like to claim back the HK$1,000 reward that he paid earlier to David.
Billy then went to a skiing holiday. Before leaving he orders a grey carpet for his new home from Quality Carpet Ltd’s (QCL) sample book and has paid HK$20,000 to QCL. The back of the sample has a sticker on it which describes the carpet as 100 percent wool. Billy also bought an expensive set of new skis from Alpine Ltd. (AL) for HK$25,000. The first time Billy uses the skis they snap into pieces. On his return from holiday, Billy discovers the colour of the carpet is pink and 100 percent polypropylene.
Early this month, Billy booked his car into Tan’s garage for a service. When he collected the car Tan told Billy that the work was complete, but in fact, Tan had forgotten to fully tighten the handbrake cable. Billy lived on a hill and when he got home he applied the handbrake and got out. The handbrake failed to hold the car which rolled down the hill and crushed Jill, who was loading shopping into the back of her car.
As a result of the collision, Billy’s car was damaged and Jill was injured.
(6 marks)
(7 marks)
(7 marks)
A.According to SECTION 168 finder of goods may sue for specific reward offered.
The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for trouble and expense voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner, but he may retain the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation, and where the owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.
Therfore David could claim the reward announced by Billy. But as David was unaware of it until the lost goods were returned he could not claim the full amount. Even if the reward was not announced he would have returned the goods. As he was unaware of the reward it can be considered that he returned the goods to a person who announced no reward. David came to know about the reward only after the transfer of goods. Then he began to claim for reward.
Therefore as it is a different situation that the founder came to know about the reward later and soon after that he started claiming reward he is not bound to receive the benefit from the bailor(owner of lost goods).
B. Buyers remedies against seller
(1) Damages for non delivery
(2)Remedy for breach of warranty
(3)Specific performance
In this case billy could claim the Remedy for Breach of Warranty under Section 59 of Sale of Goods Act
(1) Where there is a breach of warranty by the seller, or where the buyer elects or is compelled to treat any breach of a condition on the part of the seller as a breach of warranty, the buyer is not by reason only of such breach of warranty entitled to reject the goods; but he may-
(a) Set up against the seller the Brach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price; or
(b) Sue the seller for damages for breach of warranty.
(2) The fact that a buyer has set up a breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price does not prevent him from suing for the same breach of warranty if he has suffered further damage.
A breach of warranty does not entitle the buyer to reject the goods and his only remedy would be those provided in s. 59 namely, to set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the price or to sue the seller for damages for breach of warranty. From the definition of warranty given in s. 12(3)it is clear that a breach of it gives rise to a claim for damages only on the part of the buyer. It is also laid down by s. 13 that, even in the case of a breach of condition, if the buyer has accepted the goods, or, in the case of entire contracts, part of them, either voluntarily, or by acting in such a way as to preclude himself from exercising his right to reject them, he must fall back upon his claim for damages as if the breach of the condition was a breach of warranty.
This section declares the methods by which a buyer who has a claim for damages, in either case, may avail himself of it. It does not deal with the cases of fraudulent misrepresentation, which may enable the buyer to set aside the contract nor with cases where by the express terms of the contract the buyer may return the goods in case of a breach of warranty. Also, in cases where the buyer has lawfully rejected the goods, he must proceed not under this section, but under s. 57, and if necessary under s. 61,to recover the purchase price and interest.
Therefore billy could claim for damages from Quality Carpets Ltd and Alpine Ltd. Here there is a breach of implied warranty to give goods which could be used with wholesomeness. Therefore billy could suit for damages.
C. Rights and remedies of Billy and Jill against Tan
Tan is a person who works in a garage. And thus he is a person who is associated with such a job. Billy is a customer who relied upon the ability of Tan.
If a person relies upon the ability of a person and he is ap person who deals with such goods, the person breaches the contract the affected person could claim for damages.
Therefore in this case Billy and Jill have the right to suit for damages. Because, Billy relied upon the ability of Tan as he is a person dealing with such items. As Jill was injured by the fault made by Tan who was responsible to repair the properly and was a person who took it as a profession Jill could also claim for damages. Jill could claim for compensation for the loss occured to him by the injury caused.
( If you liked the answer please give an up-vote, this will be quite encouraging for me. Thankyou )
On 1 November 2019, Billy, who worked as a banker, returned from Japan for business trip...