Section One

The issues that must be considered are; whether or not MobiDine is entitled to reject all the
five Grubmaster vans; whether or not MobiDine are entitled to a full refund from
Humbervans for the failure of the Grubmaster vans to work; and whether or not MobiDine is
entitled to request compensation from Humbervans for the cost of hiring replacement vans
for the festival.

Issue One
The first issue to determine in this case is whether or not MobiDine is entitled to reject all the
five Grubmaster vans. With regards to this issue, MobiDine can reject all of the Grubmaster
vans that Humbervans supplied them.
MobiDine and Humbervans entered into a contract for supply of goods. The contract was a
valid one as it had all the elements of a valid contract. Humbervans made an invitation to
treat too. This was a valid contract as was determined in Carlill Vs Carbolic Smoke Ball
[1983] 1 where the court determined what constitutes a valid contract. The contract for the
supply of the goods was concluded when the Grubmaster vans were delivered to MobiDines
premises. The ownership of the property passed to the buyer the moment the goods were
delivered. However, the buyer relied on the recommendation that Humbervan gave them for
being the suppliers of the Grubmaster vans. There is an implied term that goods shall
correspond to the description where the contract of sale of the goods is by description 2. The
recommendation that was made by Humbervans concerning the vans that they were offering
is by itself a sale by description. In Harlington and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher
Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990]3 the court held that the sellers opinion as to the attributes of a
product amounts to a sale by description if the buyer relies on it. The buyer in this case relied
on the recommendation he received from the suppliers of the Grubmaster vans and proceeded
to buy the vans.
MobiDine can also reject the Grubmaster vans supplied to them based on the implied term on
quality or fitness. Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act (herein after referred to as: SoGA)
1979 provides that;
1 Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball [1893] 1 QB 256 Court of Appeal
2 Sale of Goods Act UK 1979, s.13(1).
3 Harlington and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 QB 564

(1) Except as provided by this section (s.14) and s.15 of the SoGA Act, and subject to
any other enactment, there is no implied term about the quality or fitness for
purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale4
The section further states; where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an
implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality5.
The Grubmaster vans were evidently not of good quality and failed to fit its required purpose.
One refrigeration unit in the van failed to keep the fish chilled while they were being put to
test. Another unit in one of the vans froze the food while it was supposed to chill it. This
proves the point that the Grubmaster vans were not up to the required standards.
The supply of Grubmaster vans that did not correspond to description and that did not
correspond to the implied term about quality or fitness for purpose amounts to a breach of the
implied term. In Saipol SA vs Inerco Trade SA [2014]6, the buyer pursued a claim for
damages against the seller for breaching s.13 and s.15 of the SoGA 1979. The tribunal in the
case also referred to the principles that were laid down in Hadley vs Baxendale [1854]7,
which provides will be able to recover:
1. the losses that arise naturally and according to the normal course of things that
arise from the breach of the contract. This is referred to as general damages.
2. Losses that may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of the
parties at the time they made the contract as a probable result of the breach. This is
referred to as special damages.
With regards to this breach, MobiDine can reject the five Grubmaster vans. Implied terms
provided by the SoGA 1979 were directly breached hence MobiDine can reject the vans
offered by Humbervans.
s.53 of the SoGA 1979 sets up the factors to be considered in order to reject the goods that are
the product of a completed contract. The buyer is not by reason only of such breach of
warranty entitled to reject the goods, but he may:
a. set up against the seller the breach of warranty in diminution or extinction of the
price, or
4 Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.14(1).
5 Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.14(2)
6 Saipol SA v Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWHC 221
7 Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex 341

b. maintain an action against the seller for damages for the breach of warranty8
As much as the Act sets alternatives to rejecting the goods totally, the decision by the buyer
largely depends on the amount of loss suffered, as was held in Hadley v Baxendale9. In this
instance, the buyer, MobiDine, has all the powers to reject the vans.
I therefore answer the first issue in the affirmative. MobiDine have the legal powers to reject
the vans.
With regards to the first issue, the issue is answered in the affirmative. MobiDine are entitled
to reject the vans. MobiDine will reject the goods based on both statute law and case law. s.23
of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 treats the incident as a breach of warranty and a remedy for
this is to reject the supplied goods, as provided for by s.54 of the Consumer Rights Act of
2015

Issue Two
The second issue is closely tied with the first issue. It seeks to ascertain whether or not, upon
rejecting the Grubmaster vans, MobiDine are entitled to get a full refund from the breach of
the implied term.
The principles provided by Hadley v Baxendale10 regarding general damages and special
damages are derived from the SoGA 1979 regarding the remedies for breach of warranty. s.53
of the SoGA 1979 provides for the remedies that a buyer can seek in case there is a breach of
warranty in a contract for sale of goods. The section claims that where the seller breaches
warranty, or where the buyer decides or is compelled to treat a breach of a condition as a
breach of warranty, the buyer cannot by reason only of such breach of warranty be entitled to
reject the goods. If the buyer sues the seller and demands payment of damages, the buyer will
have to show that the losses that he incurred were as a direct result of the breach of the
contract. if the buyer fails to effectively present before a court the fact that the losses incurred
was as a result of the direct breach, the court not grant her the remedy. The losses incurred
should be too remote from the alleged breach11.

8 Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.53(1)

9 Hadley v Baxendale [1854] [1854] 9 Ex 341
10 Hadley v Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex 341
11 In Brief: Helping with legal issues, < http://www.inbrief.co.uk/consumer-law/remediesbuyers-sale-of-goods-contract/> Retrieved on the 8th August 2016.

MobiDine can either take the action to a court of law or directly demand for the refund from
Humbervans. s.22 of the Consumer Rights Act (herein after referred to as; CRA) 2015
changed the buyers right to reject something faulty and to entitled to a full refund in most
cases, from the previous reasonable time to a fixed period of 30 days. After 30 days lapses,
the buyer will automatically lose the short-term right to reject the goods, and consequently
will have fewer rights. If MobiDine delays in seeking a full refund of the money they used in
purchasing the six Grubmaster vans, there only remaining solution would be to seek for a fair
replacement from Humbervans, as they will have lost the right.
The CRA 2015 provides, in case of a rejection of the goods in question, the seller's duty is to
give the consumer a refund. Furthermore, it provides for the duty of the consumer to make
the goods available for collection by the trader or to return them as agreed 12. The CRA 2015
further provides:
Whether or not the consumer bears the duty of returning the rejected goods, the trader/seller
must bear any reasonable costs incurred in returning them, other than any other costs that will
be incurred by the consumer while returning the goods in person to the place wherefrom the
consumer took physical possession of them.
Refunding of the buyer works to the extent that the consumer/buyer paid money under a
contract13. The consumer is therefore entitled to receive the same amount that he paid
Humbervans for the purchase of the Grubmaster vans.
To conclude, MobiDine are entitled to request Humbervans to make a full refund of the cash
they used in purchasing the vans. The full refund can be made pursuant to the provisions
given by s.20(7). Furthermore, a consumer cannot claim a full refund of the funds he used in
purchasing the Grubmaster vans if he has already claimed a compensation for the purchase of
other vans.

Issue Three
The issue that arises is whether or not MobiDine is entitled to request compensation from
Humbervans for the cost of hiring replacement vans for the festival
12 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.20(7)
13 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.20(10) (11)

After rejecting the Grubmaster vans and furthermore claiming a refund of the funds they used
in purchasing the vans from Humbervans, an issue begs to know whether or not the catering
company can claim compensation for the cost that they incurred on hiring a replacement of
the vans that they will use for the festival.
A claim for compensation is another remedy to a breach of the implied terms of quality,
fitness for purpose, merchantability and sale by description. It is a long standing remedy that
provides the consumers with a chance to claim compensation for damages. The condition to
being granted this remedy is that the buyer should have been denied by law the chance to
reject the goods or they have chosen not to request for damages.
Compensation can be by way of actual losses, which MobiDine will claim for the
replacement of the vans to be used in the Festival. Compensation can also come from a direct
as well as predictable expense that arises from being supplied with faulty goods, which is
often referred to as consequential loss. If the consumer needs the trader to replace the
product, the trader must do so within a reasonable time and without inconveniencing the
consumer14. The trader should also bear the necessary costs that come with replacing the
vans.
s.23(7) of the CRA 2015 also protects the seller/trader of Humbervans in this case, basically
because it provides that a consumer who requires or agrees to the repair of goods cannot be
seen or heard requiring the trader to replace them, or exercise the short time right to reject,
without providing the trader with a reasonable time to replace them15.
s.23(7) on replacement of the faulty goods also caters for compensating the buyer for
purchasing other vans to be used in the event16. The replacement should be done within a
reasonable time and without inconveniencing the customer. The replacement should not take
a disproportionate cost too. This means that the compensation that will be given by
Humbervans will be a rough estimate or equal to the amount incurred by MobiDine in
purchasing the Grubmaster vans.
14 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.23(2).
15 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.23(7)
16 Ibid

A compensation for replacement of the vans to be used in the festival should only be an
option if MobiDine have not made a request for repairs or the full payment from
Humbervans17.
In conclusion, MobiDine can be compensated for replacing the vans, but this will only suffice
where they have not exercised the other remedies. If MobiDine have already exercised the
remedy of full refund provided for by section 20(7) of the Consumer Rights Act, they cannot
claim compensation for the purchase of other vans.

Section Two
The issue that must be considered is whether Humbervans is bound by the contract that Adam
agreed with Parceldrop.
s.50(1) of the CRA 2015 provides for the information concerning a trader or service to be
binding. The Section states18:
Every contract to supply a service is to be treated as including as a term of the contract
anything that is said or written by the consumer, by or on behalf of the trader , about the
trader or the services, if

It is taken into account by the consumer when deciding to enter into the contract
The consumer takes into account when making any decision about the service about
the service after entering the contract

The act further provides that anything that will be taken into account by the consumer in the
process of negotiating a contract of service is subject to anything that qualified the thing. The
thing that qualified it might have been said or written to the consumer by the trader. In
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]19, the contract for the sale of the Carbolic smoke balls was
taken to be binding because the consumer relied on the information. The dictum of this case
is in line with s.50 of the CRA 2015. Furthermore, any change to the thing that is being taken
into account must have been expressly agreed between the two negotiating parties; the
consumer and the trader.
17 Department of Trade and Industry, Consumer and Completion Policy Directorate: The
Sale and Supply of goods to Consumer Regulations 2002, <
http://www.secola.org/db/2_12/gb_noteslong.pdf> Retrieved on 8th August 2016.
18 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.50(1)
19 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562

In the case at hand, there was a valid contract that was struck between the consumer from
Parcel drop and Humbervans, being represented by Adam. The contract was a valid one as
provided by s.50 of the CRA 2015. Furthermore, Adam, Pauls son, was acting on behalf of
the general manager hence he had the capacity to contract. He is not insane nor is he a minor,
qualifying him to be able to contract.
As this is a valid contract in law, the traders, being Humbervans, are not entitled to change
the position that Adam represented to Parceldrop. Failure to abide by this will amount to a
breach under section 54 of the Consumer Rights Act. The section requires the trader to stick
by his position and deliver the services as required, and within a reasonable time. If the
service that is undertaken by the trader does not conform to the terms of the agreement, the
consumer will be able to demand her right for a repeat performance 20, as provided by s.55 of
the CRA 2015 or the right to a fair price reduction, proviso to s.50. The consumer is at liberty
to seek the remedies that are available to them if the trader does not conform to the terms of
the contract.
In conclusion, the issue on whether or not Humbervans are bound by the contract entered into
by Adam is answered in the affirmative. A contract is taken to be sealed once the offeree
accepts the position given by the offeror and relies on it. Adam had the requisite capacity to
contract and he was also acting as an agent of Paul. Humbervans will have to move with the
contract as was agreed by Adams and Parceldrop.

20 Consumer Rights Act 2015 s.55