- Mohammed Vs. E&Z Electronics - Case Study Example

Argument Firstly, as Mohammed purchased a washing machine from E&Z Electronics, this means that the parties had a contract of sale between them. In a contract of sale, there are some conditions and warranties that may be express or implied. Express conditions and warranties are expressly and mutually agreed upon by the parties to the contract. Implied conditions and warranties are not expressly agreed upon by the parties but are applicable and have to be complied with because of operation of law or usage in business.

It is worth noting that E&Z Electronics is a major distributor and reseller of L&G electronic products in Dubai. Therefore, it is very safe to assume that as the seller, E&Z Electronics was acting in the course of the business. S 14(2) of Sale of Goods Act, 1979 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.” Also, the defect in the machine was not drawn to the attention to the attention of the buyer nor the buyer could have unveiled the defect through his examination of the machine.

Therefore, there is a breach of condition by E&Z Electronics which gives the plaintiff a right to repudiate the contract. . The defect in the washing machine was as latent to the plaintiff as the snail in the ginger beer bottle in Donoghue v Stevenson. Conclusion The plaintiff must be awarded damages for the injury and loss that he has suffered because of the negligence of E&Z Electronics and the manufacturer. Also, he must be given the right to treat the contract with E&Z Electronics as rescinded and receive his money back which was paid as the purchase price of the washing machine.

2 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Case No. XXXX Mohammed, Petitioner, vs. E&Z Electronics and XXX (The Manufacturer) Respondents. Issue The issue is whether Mohammed is entitled to a compensation for his injuries and loss from E&Z Electronics and the manufacturer of the faulty washing machine and to a right to repudiate the contract. Facts The plaintiff, Mohammed, purchased a washing machine from one of the defendants, E&Z Electronics. The washing machine had a defective electrical switch due to which it malfunctioned and resulted in significant bodily injuries and property damages to Mohammed.

Reasoning There was a contract of sale between E&Z Electronics and there has been a breach of implied condition of merchantability because E&Z Electronics was acting in the course of business and it is reasonably expected of E&Z Electronics to know about such defects in the machinery that they deal with. It is a condition because it goes to the very root of the contract and its breach defeats the whole purpose of the contract. It would have been a warranty if it was just a term collateral to the contract.

In this case, the washing machine had to be safely usable. Otherwise, there is no purpose of buying the washing machine. E&Z Electronics is also responsible for