CRA 2015 with exclusion clause and breach structure
Hisham owned a shop selling second-hand electrical goods. A notice was displayed
prominently in a number of places around the shop. The notice advised all customers to
inspect goods carefully before buying because there would be no exchanges or refunds once
goods were taken from the shop. Imani paid £250 for a one-year-old washing machine.
Before she did so, she visually inspected it. She noticed some dents but did not see the start
of a crack on a side panel and also did not notice that the door seal was rather loose. When
she first used the washing machine, part of the side panel broke away along the crack. Imani
also discovered that water was leaking from the poor door seal, which would cost £85 to
replace.
A spell of very bad weather had been forecast to arrive in about two weeks. Imani agreed to
pay Jadon £200 to clean the gutters on her house ‘in the next few days’ and made an
immediate £50 part-payment. A little later, Jadon told Imani that he would have to delay the
work. The bad weather arrived before Jadon could start. Persistent heavy rain poured over
the gutters and flooded Imani’s conservatory, causing damage valued at £400.
Consider the rights and remedies of Imani against Hisham in relation to the washing
machine.
Consider the rights and possible remedies of Imani and of Jadon against each other in
connection with the agreement about work on the gutters.
CRA 2015 and Exclusion Clauses
Imani may have a claim against Hisham under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
First, it must be established that there is a trader and consumer. Hisham is a trader under
s.2(2) as he operates a shop selling second-hand electrical goods for profit. Imani is a
consumer under s.2(3), as she purchased the washing machine for personal use. This
establishes that the CRA 2015 applies to their contract.
Next, the goods must be of satisfactory quality under s.9 (Rogers). The washing machine
was second-hand, meaning reasonable wear and tear is expected. However, while Imani
noticed visible dents at the time of purchase, she was unaware of the cracked side panel
and loose door seal. Upon use, the panel broke, and water leaked from the door seal,
demonstrating that the washing machine was not of satisfactory quality as required by s.9,
The goods must also be fit for purpose under s.10 (Baldry). Imani bought the washing
machine to wash clothes effectively, but due to the leaking seal and broken panel, it failed
to perform its intended function. Since the defects directly impacted the essential purpose
of the washing machine, it breaches s.10.
As there has been a breach of s.9 and s.10, Imani will be entitled to remedies.
Hisham owned a shop selling second-hand electrical goods. A notice was displayed
prominently in a number of places around the shop. The notice advised all customers to
inspect goods carefully before buying because there would be no exchanges or refunds once
goods were taken from the shop. Imani paid £250 for a one-year-old washing machine.
Before she did so, she visually inspected it. She noticed some dents but did not see the start
of a crack on a side panel and also did not notice that the door seal was rather loose. When
she first used the washing machine, part of the side panel broke away along the crack. Imani
also discovered that water was leaking from the poor door seal, which would cost £85 to
replace.
A spell of very bad weather had been forecast to arrive in about two weeks. Imani agreed to
pay Jadon £200 to clean the gutters on her house ‘in the next few days’ and made an
immediate £50 part-payment. A little later, Jadon told Imani that he would have to delay the
work. The bad weather arrived before Jadon could start. Persistent heavy rain poured over
the gutters and flooded Imani’s conservatory, causing damage valued at £400.
Consider the rights and remedies of Imani against Hisham in relation to the washing
machine.
Consider the rights and possible remedies of Imani and of Jadon against each other in
connection with the agreement about work on the gutters.
CRA 2015 and Exclusion Clauses
Imani may have a claim against Hisham under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).
First, it must be established that there is a trader and consumer. Hisham is a trader under
s.2(2) as he operates a shop selling second-hand electrical goods for profit. Imani is a
consumer under s.2(3), as she purchased the washing machine for personal use. This
establishes that the CRA 2015 applies to their contract.
Next, the goods must be of satisfactory quality under s.9 (Rogers). The washing machine
was second-hand, meaning reasonable wear and tear is expected. However, while Imani
noticed visible dents at the time of purchase, she was unaware of the cracked side panel
and loose door seal. Upon use, the panel broke, and water leaked from the door seal,
demonstrating that the washing machine was not of satisfactory quality as required by s.9,
The goods must also be fit for purpose under s.10 (Baldry). Imani bought the washing
machine to wash clothes effectively, but due to the leaking seal and broken panel, it failed
to perform its intended function. Since the defects directly impacted the essential purpose
of the washing machine, it breaches s.10.
As there has been a breach of s.9 and s.10, Imani will be entitled to remedies.
