Business Law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Business Law - Essay ExampleExcept where the parties rich person hold otherwise, the goods do not conform with the contract unless they(a) are fit for the purposes for which goods of the same description would ordinarily be employ(b) are fit for any bad-tempered purpose expressly or impliedly make known to the seller at the time of the conclusion of the contract, except where the circumstances show that the buyer did not rely, or that it was unreasonable for him to rely, on the sellers skill and judgment.In this case, the seller is acting in the course of business. It is common knowledge that bricks are made of clay. According to facts, Sparkling Bricks were made of compressed paper. CISG (Article 38(1)) states that,The buyer must(prenominal) examine the goods, or cause them to be examined, within as short a period as is practicable in the circumstances.If the courts are convinced that it could collapse been revealed that the bricks were not made of clay upon reasonable examina tion, Brick-for-All would not be held liable. Paul can easily be expected to have known that what kind of material was used in making those bricks. Kingsley Ltd is a construction company and the purchasing of bricks is a very important factor for them. They must have chosen Paul to purchase the bricks because he must have had sufficient knowledge about bricks. In the given case, Sparkling Bricks were normally used externally which is their ordinary use. The facts clearly evince that the bricks that did not came into contact with sea salt did not allow damp into the house. They were fit for the purpose of external usage. The whole purpose that was mentioned by Paul to the seller was external use. He never said anything about the location of the site where they were to be used. Paul chose the Sparkling Bricks himself. On the other hand, if Sparkling Bricks are such that it cannot be found out upon reasonable examination that they were made of compressed paper instead of clay, it is a responsibleness of Brick-for-All to tell the buyer about that fact. If it is further assumed that the knowledge about the bricks being made of compressed paper was crucial for Pauls decision, Brick-for-All would be held liable. Article 36(1) of CISG states that, The seller is liable in accordance with the contract and this Convention for any lack of conformity which exists at the time when the risk passes to the buyer, even though the lack of conformity becomes apparent only after that time. Still assuming that reasonable examination by Paul could not have revealed the composition of the bricks, it would have been immaterial if Brick-for-All would have mentioned that fact to him. If the courts hold Brick-for-All liable, there is a question of restitution. Kingsley Ltd would be unable to return the bricks in their original form. Article 82(1) of CISG states that, The buyer loses the good to declare the contract