Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Tutorial Questions Topic 3

    Uploaded by

    maizatul aisyah
    The document discusses topics related to the Sale of Goods Act 1957 including: 1. Delivery and acceptance of goods. 2. Exceptions to the general rule of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer a better title than they have). Five exceptions are explained with examples. 3. Implied terms under the Act regarding rights and liabilities in scenarios involving delivery of non-certified goods, buyer allergies, and differences between sample and delivered goods. 4. Determining if a buyer can obtain good title when the original seller received goods through a voidable contract or sold the same goods to multiple buyers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tutorial Questions Topic 3

    Uploaded by

    maizatul aisyah
    12 views3 pages
    The document discusses topics related to the Sale of Goods Act 1957 including: 1. Delivery and acceptance of goods. 2. Exceptions to the general rule of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer a better title than they have). Five exceptions are explained with examples. 3. Implied terms under the Act regarding rights and liabilities in scenarios involving delivery of non-certified goods, buyer allergies, and differences between sample and delivered goods. 4. Determining if a buyer can obtain good title when the original seller received goods through a voidable contract or sold the same goods to multiple buyers.

    Original Description:

    for exercise

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses topics related to the Sale of Goods Act 1957 including: 1. Delivery and acceptance of goods. 2. Exceptions to the general rule of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer a better title than they have). Five exceptions are explained with examples. 3. Implied terms under the Act regarding rights and liabilities in scenarios involving delivery of non-certified goods, buyer allergies, and differences between sample and delivered goods. 4. Determining if a buyer can obtain good title when the original seller received goods through a voidable contract or sold the same goods to multiple buyers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views3 pages

    Tutorial Questions Topic 3

    Uploaded by

    maizatul aisyah
    The document discusses topics related to the Sale of Goods Act 1957 including: 1. Delivery and acceptance of goods. 2. Exceptions to the general rule of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can transfer a better title than they have). Five exceptions are explained with examples. 3. Implied terms under the Act regarding rights and liabilities in scenarios involving delivery of non-certified goods, buyer allergies, and differences between sample and delivered goods. 4. Determining if a buyer can obtain good title when the original seller received goods through a voidable contract or sold the same goods to multiple buyers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Tutorial Topic 3 (Sale of Goods)

    Structure Questions

    1. Explain about the delivery and acceptance of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1957
    (10
    marks)

    2. The principle ‘Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet’ means no one can transfer a better title than
    he has himself. However, in certain situations, the buyer will get a good title to the goods
    even though the seller was not the owner or does not have authority to sell. Explain FIVE
    (5) exceptions to the general rule. Support your answer with provision in the Sale of
    Goods Act 1957 and decided cases (if any).
    (10 marks)

    Essay Questions

    1. Nisha operates a small business making pillows and soft toys stuffed with 100% organic
    cotton. Besides being environmentally friendly, her products are also popular among
    customers who are allergic to the common polyster stuffing found in most pillows and
    soft toys. She normally orders her cotton stuffing from a company, Fairtrade Sdn Bhd
    under the brand Tulen which carries a 100% organic certification from the producer.

    In relation to implied terms under SOGA, advise Nisha of the rights and liabilities that
    arises from the following scenarios:-

    a. On one occasion Fairtrade delivered to her 50 kgs of cotton stuffing under the
    brand Pilofix which are known to be organic but does not carry the 100%
    certification. Nisha refused to accept the stuffing and wanted to cancel the
    contract, but Fairtrade insisted that Nisha pay for the delivery saying that they
    have fulfilled their contract
    b. A customer bought a pillow from Nisha. 2 days later the customer complained
    that the pillow was causing her allergies and wishes to sue Nisha for breach of
    implied term that goods bought must be fit for buyer’s purpose. Upon
    investigation, it was revealed that the customer was suffering from a rare
    allergy to the dye used on the pillowcase. This fact was not disclosed to Nisha
    when the customer was buying the pillow.
    c. Siew Mei, an importer of organic cotton pillow from Singapore has engage
    Nisha to buy 1000 pillows from her. She has seen the pillow sample during
    her visit to Nisha’s shop and is satisfied with the quality of the sample. When
    she received the 1000 pillows, she found out that there is a small difference
    between the sample and the order that she received (the colour of the
    pillowcase sample is white but the product delivered to her is cream). She asks
    whether she can claim damages due to the difference in quality of the goods
    (15
    marks)

    1. Read the following situation and determine whether the buyer can obtain a good title of
    ownership for the goods: -

    i. Norman received a car from his father under a voidable contract of undue
    influence (his father was living with him and is dependent on him). Norman sold
    the car to Nora under a sale and purchase agreement. Norman’s siblings came to
    see Nora, demanding her to return the car as they claimed that the contract
    between Norman and their father is a voidable contract. Nora has no knowledge at
    all regarding this issue when she bought the car
    (5 marks)

    ii. Tipu Sdn Bhd had sold a bookshelf to Ms Rainie and Ms Rainie had paid for the
    price of the bookshelf. Without the knowledge of Ms Rainie, Tipu Sdn Bhd sold
    the same bookshelf to Mr Richard who had no knowledge of the transaction
    between Tipu Sdn Bhd and Ms Rainie. They deliver the bookshelf to Mr Richard,
    to the dismay of Ms Rainie. Advise Ms Rainie on the remedy available under the
    law for her.
    (5
    marks)

    You might also like