Answers:
Discussion
According to the case study, Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. is a manufacture of new and used pirate ships. Davey Jones is a buyer who went to the company for buying a pirate ship. When the sales person showed him three different ships he chooses one of the ship which was decorated with a painting of horrible sea creatures. The price of the ship was 300 kilograms of solid gold but the buyer negotiated with the price and later he made a fair deal of 175 kilograms of solid gold and bought that pirate ship.
After few days, when the hurricane season got ended, the buyer put the ship in the water for checking how it works and after 10 kilometers of sailing he found that it began to take excessive water and his crew aboard the Flying Dutchmen and ashore the ship in the dock of Captain Jack Sparrow Inc.’s docking port and now he want to take legal actions against the company for his loss (Love, 2014).
As a buyer, Davey Jones has some rights.
- He must get the delivery as per the contract
- Buyer can reject the goods if that not satisfy as per the description of quality and quantity
- He have rights to examine that products or goods
- The buyer have right to sue to the seller if that deliver goods was damaged
- He also sues the seller if he neglects to deliver the goods.
In a contract of selling goods, the parties must mention about the condition and warranty of the products. As per the sec-12 (2) Condition is the basic fundamental stipulation of any sale contract but the warranty represent the another additional stipulation. Condition always represents the requirement of those part which must performed before the completion of another action whereas, the assurance given by the seller to the buyer for the state of the product will known as warranty.
If someone breach the condition then any party can terminate the contract whereas, if seller breach the warranty of the contract then buyer can claim the damages for the breach. As per the sec- 12(3), when a contract of sale is formed with the consideration of both buyer and seller and the seller sales the goods as breaches of warranty, then the buyer never reject the goods either if that present in the specific performance of contract (R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, s. 50). Therefore, it can be stated that, as a seller of the company, he breaches the agreement and deliver a disputed ship to the buyer. The seller breaches the contract so buyer can take legal actions against him (Veitch, 2015).
The measurement of damages will always estimate as per the loss which occurred by directly or naturally as per the breach by the seller. According to the sale of goods act the buyer can set up against the breach of warranty and maintain legal actions for the damages. It is a loss of quality of those goods which is a direct breach. In this case the breach was happened due to the quality and value of goods. The remedy can be claimed as per the specific performance (Love, 2014).
If the seller breach the contract of warranty, the court order for the specific performance as per the value or the special significance of that particular goods. If any damages happen to the good then buyer must claim his rights for the recovery of the damages. Damages always recovered in money which represents that the buyer can recover his money if he takes legal actions against Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. (R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, s. 51) (Veitch, 2015).
In the case of Wingold Construction Co. Ltd. v. Kramp, [1960] case, as per the sec-51(3) the seller breaches the quality of goods. When the buyer accept the goods, he found that the product was damaged therefore he sued the seller for breach of warranty of quality. But as per the act, the buyer was entitled to the specific performance therefore, the damage of the loss was directed by the nature and he was aware about the quality. Therefore the buyer who was the respondent in this case, the court not accepted his claim. For the nature calamity, the damage as happen and when both of them knows the consequences. No damages can be claimed.
As per the above discussion it can be concluded that, the company breached the contract and the buyer can take legal action against to the company.
References
Love, R. L. (2014). Canadian Product Liability Law–2013 in Review. Defense Counsel Journal, 81(2), 164-172.
Veitch, E. (2015). When the Court Finds a Breach of Fiduciary Obligations, Should Equitable or Legal Remedies Flow. UNBLJ, 66, 200.
Wingold Construction Co. Ltd. v. Kramp, [1960] S.C.R. 556
