ng that “we shall be holding you responsible for any claims brought against us by any customers who have suffered loss as a result of use of the toy.”
In a different case, Toys4U posted an advertisement in the newspaper a vacancy for a sales assistant. Amanda applied for the job. She was called for an interview at the store. After the interview, Amanda was told that her application failed since she did not have the ‘right attributes.’
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 specifically section 14 protects purchaser of goods against latent defects. In the outset though, there is a need to determine whether the transaction between Mrs. Sharma and Toys4U falls within the law’s protection by establishing that the sale was made “in the course of a business.” While this is not defined in SoGA 1979, UCTA 1977 explained that the phrase in the course of business indicates that the sale be an integral part of the business (Koffman & Macdonald, 2007). In this case, Mrs. Sharma bought the toy in Toys4U, a retailer selling toys in the normal course of its business. Quite clearly, the transaction was not a mere private sale.
The claim which Mrs. Sharma may file against Toys4U involves the breach of implied terms in the purchase of the toy Polaris Missile under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. There may be liability by Toys4U with respect to its implied conditions to the product’s ‘fitness for purpose’ and ‘satisfactory quality’ since it was the proximate cause of Pritam’s injury.
Section 1 (1) of the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 which amended s. 14 (2) of SoGA 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 satisfactory quality” (cited in Chantry, n.d., p. 130). As laid down in s.1(2A) of the 1994 Act, “goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of