UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY MARA

CAMPUS ARAU

BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HONS)

BUSINESS LAW
LAW416

ASSIGNMENT CASE STUDY: SALE OF GOODS

PREPARED BY:
Names Students id
Nazihah Binti Mohd Fauzan 2022819416
Nur Qairunnisa Binti Mochsein 2022461988
Nurul Hidayah Binti Meor Pauzi 2022484942
Nurul Izzah Binti Mohd Gozali 2022698256

PREPARED FOR:
DR ZETI ZURYANI MOHD ZAKUAN

SUBMISSION DATE:
9TH JANUARY 2023
QUESTION
Lena a housewife, visits Tenggara Bhd, a company that sells various kinds of electrical
goods for household purposes. She told the shop assistant that she needed a
microwave oven that had a dual function; for baking and heating food. The assistant
strongly recommended the Delight microwave oven. Subsequently, when Lena used
the oven for the first time to bake her cake, it exploded and caused a fire to break out
in Lena’s kitchen. Lena suffered severe burns.
Advise Lena as to her rights against Tenggara Sdn. Bhd, if any.

ISSUE
Based on Lena and Tenggara Sdn. Bhd. issues, whether Lena can sue or bring legal
action against Tenggara Sdn. Bhd. because of the incident happened to her under
Section 16 (1)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 9157.

LAW
Section 16(1) Sale of Goods Act 1957 follows the common law rule in the phrase
caveat emptor, which says that there is no implied condition as to fitness for particular
purpose. The law expects the buyer to exercise care in making purchases. If she does
not then she must bear the consequences. However, there is an exception to this.
Section 16(1)(a) provides that implied conditions as to fitness for particular purpose
exist if five (5) conditions are fulfilled:
1. The buyer must make known, either expressly or impliedly to the seller at or
before the time when the contract is made, the particular purpose for which the
goods are required. This means that the buyer basically must inform the seller
expressly or impliedly the reason as to why they want to purchase the goods.
2. The example law case of Priest v Last (1903). In this case Plaintiff bought the
hot water bottle from Defendant. Unfortunately, the bottle burst and injured
Plaintiff's wife.
Court held that since hot water bottle has only one purpose that is to store hot
water, the Plaintiff is not required to disclose the purpose of buying the hot water
bottle. Plaintiff should succeed in his claim.
3. The buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment. This means that you had
relied on the seller's advice on that particular goods.
4. The law case of Cammell Laird & Co. v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co. Ltd.
(1934). There was a contract between A and B. A was to build propeller for B
in accordance to B's specification and design. However, the details were left to
A's skill and judgement. The propeller supplied complied with the specification
but did not suit the ship's engine.

2
 Court held that A was liable for breach of implied condition since B had informed
the seller purpose of the propeller and relied on A's skill and judgement.
5. The goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business
to supply. Look at a nature of shop.
6. The example law case of Ashington Piggeries Ltd. v Christopher Hill Ltd.
(1972). In this case the seller is in the business to supplied animal food. The
buyer bought mink food from the seller. The food is not suitable for the animal.
The buyer sued the seller. Seller argued that he has never supply mink before
so he should not be responsible for that.
Court held that the seller is still liable because he is in the business to supply
feeding compound.
7. The goods must be reasonably fit for the purpose as what has the buyer
mentioned when the contract of sale between both parties is been made.
8. The example law case of Spencer Trading Co. Ltd v Devon. In this case the
manufacturer supplied the D (seller), gum which was made from natural
material. A year later, manufacturer supplied gum which was made from raw
material. P (buyer) sued the D saying that the gum was unsatisfactory, thus it
was not fit for its purpose.
Court held that the goods are for the seller’s business to supply. Since it was
unsatisfactory, thus it was not fit for its purpose.
9. If the goods are specific, they must not be bought under their patent or trade
name. If a buyer buys under a goods patent or trade name, then it means that
the buyer had relied on the brand name and not the seller's skill and judgement.
10. The example law case of Baldry v Marshall (1925). In this case a dealer
recommends a Bugatti for touring. It was not suitable for that purpose.
Court held that the dealer is liable.

APPLICATION
1. Lena had expressly told the shop assistant that she needed to buy a microwave
oven that had dual functioning which is to baking and heating food. Commonly
known that microwave oven has its own function so it is applied on disclosure
of purpose where no need to declare the purpose for which the items are
required if the goods have only one purpose.
2. Rely on Priest v Last, Lena bought microwave oven from Tenggara Sdn Bhd.
Unfortunately, when she used for the first time, the microwave oven exploded
and caused a fire to break out in Lena’s kitchen.
3. Lena had relied on the shop assistant skill and judgment where the assistant of
the shop was strongly recommended the Delight microwave oven towards her
where Lena was showed reliance to the shop assistant. Then suddenly the
microwave was exploded, causing fire to break out in Lena’s kitchen and she
suffered severe burns. Since she relies on the seller’s skill and judgement, so
the seller should be responsible.

3
 4. Rely on case of Cammell Laird & Co. v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co. Ltd.
(1934), Lena relies on the shop assistant skill and judgement to get the
microwave oven that had a dual function for baking and heating food. However,
when Lena used the microwave for the first time, it exploded and caused fire
break out which make Lena suffered for severe burns.
5. It was indeed the seller’s business to supply was Lena had already consulted
to the seller who has the knowledge to their products. Also, Lena was not asking
to random people about judgement and skills who is working at the
supermarket. Goods kitchen product is in the course of the seller’s business to
supply. So, Lena was asking the right person to purchase the goods.
6. Rely on Ashington Piggeries Ltd. v Christopher Hill Ltd. (1972). Lena visit
company that sells various kind of electrical goods and asking shop assistant
for microwave oven that had dual function for baking and heating food, however
the microwave was exploded and caused a fire break out in Lena’s kitchen
which make Lena suffered severe burns.
7. The microwave oven that suggested by the shop assistant does not fit the
purpose in accordance with Lena's choice which is dual functioning microwave
oven that can baking and heating food because the microwave exploded and
caused a fire to break out in Lena’s kitchen when Lena used it for the first time.
8. Rely on case of Spencer Trading Co. Ltd. v Devon, dual functioning microwave
oven should be supplied by the sellers. However, the microwave turns out to
be unsatisfactory as the microwave exploded and caused fire break out which
make the goods not fit the purpose.
9. When she buying the microwave oven, Lena did not state the brand name or
any patent at the store. So, she put the trust on a shop assistant’s skills and
judgement and not relied on any other brand name.
10. Rely on case of Baldry v Marshall (1925), the shop assistant strongly
recommended the Delight microwave oven. However, when Lena used the
oven for the first time, the microwave exploded and caused a fire to break out
in Lena’s kitchen.

CONCLUSION
The five conditions were fulfilled, hence there is an implied condition as to fitness of
purpose for the dual function microwave oven that Lena wanted for baking and heating
food. Based on Section 12 (2) of Sale of Goods Act 1957 provides that condition as a
stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise
to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. Condition is used rather loosely to
describe any term of a contract. The breach of which allowed the other party to treat
the contract as discharged. In a conclusion, Lena can sue and bring legal action
against Tenggara Sdn. Bhd.