(a)

Issue:

The issue here refers to if Adam has any remedies in contract law under Sales of Goods Act.

Rule:

Under law of the Sales Goods Act, Adam is able to sue for damages if there is a breach of other warranties or conditions under section 13 and 14 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides that in the contract of goods by description, there is an implied term that will correspond with the description. Section 14(2) of the Act states that when the seller is selling goods in the course of business, goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality.

Application:

For section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act to be successfully invoked, it must be shown that Adam must have relied on the description of the pills on the bottle. He relied on the advertisement made by A1 that the pills were manufactured in Switzerland and made from pure natural products. However, it turned out that the pills contained chemical substances that are harmful and made in Nigeria instead of Switzerland. With regards to section 14 of the Act, the buyer has to consider all relevant factors besides prices. This can include safety purposes where the pills sold should be labeled with appropriate headings or instructions. Hence, Adam can bring an action against A1 for damages for the breach of warranty or the price that he has pay to the seller due to unsatisfactory quality.

Conclusion:

Although Adam is likely to be able to sue A1 for damages, he has to be mindful that under the Sales of Goods Act, once the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods and keep it for a reasonable period of time, he will lose his right to reject the goods and sue A1.

(b)

Issue

In order to determine if Samantha is able to sue Adam for the breach of contract, she has to be aware of the situations that will entitle her to discharge the contract. She has to determine if there is an agreement or contract between both of them.

Rule & Application

In this case, she can sue Adam if the contract clearly and unambiguously provides for the event such that upon occurrence of such event she can terminate the contract. In addition, the presence of any express term or implied term in the contract that could relate to not having reasonable care

will entitle her to discharge the contract. If the relevant term is a condition such that the breach will deprive her of substantially the whole benefit of the contract then she is able to sue Adam.

On the other hand, Adam could defend himself by claiming that there is innocent misrepresentation as he had reasonable ground to believe that the pills he bought were made from Switzerland and made from pure natural products. Thus, he entered into a contract with Samantha being unaware that the pills bought were from Nigeria and contained harmful substances. In cases involving innocent misrepresentation, Samantha does not have the right to damages but could claim an indemnity against Adam. Hence, she might not be able to sue Adam for the breach of contract.

Conclusion

Samantha can sue Adam if there was a contract between them with terms that allow termination in the event of a breach. However, if Adam were to prove that he had no intention to make a false statement towards Samantha, he might not be liable for damages.

(c)

Issue

The issue here refers to the validity of exclusion clause which allows A1 to not be liable for any breach of contract.

Rule

For an exclusion clause to be applied, the breach must fall within the ambit of clause as it is worded. If the clause was on written standard terms, “contra proferentum” rule suggests that it can be construed in a favour of the other party if there is any ambiguity. Also, if the breach relates to negligence, clear words have to be used. In this case, the exclusion clause was written in small prints which not might be obvious to their customers. Given the fact that Adam and Samantha were surprised to find out from their lawyer that the bottle contained an exclusion clause, this indicated that they were unaware which in turn reduces the validity of the clause.

Application

There are also several legal impediments to the validity of the exclusion clause. The legal effect of the clause has been misrepresented and operation of legislation (Unfair Contract Terms Act Cap 396) that will disallow A1 to rely on the exclusion clause.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396) [UCTA] will affect the operation of the exclusion clause. In Adam’s case, there is said to be misrepresentation as he purchased the pills based on the fact that they are made from natural products but it turned out that they contained chemical

substances that are detrimental to one’s health. Under UCTA, exemption clause can only be relied if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. Section 11 of the UCTA provides that the requirement of reasonableness is such that the term is fair and reasonable and made known in the contemplation of parties when the contract was made. Given that Adam was unaware of the presence of such clause makes it difficult to satisfy such requirement. A1 will find it difficult to protect themselves against Adam’s claim.

As for Samantha, A1 is said to be liable for negligence in the course of business. Samantha was diagnosed with kidney failure due to the presence of toxic artificial chemical substance in the pills. Section 2 of the Act (UCTA) provides that the person cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury resulting from negligence. This will thus cause the exclusion clause to be invalid and A1 will be liable for damages. Samantha also lost her job as a model due to hospitalization for two weeks. Similar to Adam’s case, exemption clause can only be relied if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. Being unaware of such clause will cause A1 to be unable to protect themselves against claims.

Conclusion

In a nutshell, it is difficult for A1 to not be held liable for negligence despite the presence of an exclusion clause.

(d)

Issue

Samantha has to determine how she can succeed in suing A1 under the law of Tort.

Rule

In order for Samantha to succeed in claiming against A1 for negligence under the law of Tort, she has to establish the presence of three elements. These include the presence of duty of care owned by A1 to Samantha, the breach of that duty by A1 and lastly the resulting damage suffered by Samantha.

Application:

Under duty of care, firstly, one has to establish that there was factual foreseeability of damage resulting from the negligent act. It was reasonably foreseeable from a factual perspective that failure to take reasonable care by A1 will cause injury or damage to their customers. The pills contain chemical substances that are harmful and will cause damage to their customers’ health. Secondly, there is a need to show that there is sufficient relationship of “proximity” between A1 and Samantha to indicate that A1 indeed owe Samantha a duty of care. There is presence of casual proximity as A1 gave negligent advice knowing that their customer will follow their advice and thus suffer damage. Samantha followed the instructions on the bottle of the pills and

resulted in severe pain and kidney problems. Thirdly, there should not be any policy considerations that will negate the existence of duty of care.

Next, Samantha has to show that A1 has breached their duty of care. A “reasonable man test” can be carried out. This test will indicate if A1 has done what a reasonable man will not do and not done what a reasonable man would have done. Moreover, Samantha is able to make use of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. She will only be required to show that the loss or damage suffered from the incident was due to negligence. She has to show that the injury or damage was under the control of A1 and it will not happen in the ordinary course of things if proper care was used. If A1 had conducted proper checks on the manufacturing of the pills and not conceal the fact that the pills were made in Nigeria and contained unnatural products, this would have reduced the damage and not cause her to have kidney problems. Thus, there is indeed a breach of duty.

Lastly, to establish if A1 is liable for the Tort of Negligence, Samantha must indicate that she had indeed suffered from some resulting damage. Firstly, the damage must have been caused by the breach of duty (causation) and secondly, the damage suffered must not be too remote (remoteness). The principle of causation indicates that A1 should only be liable for damage to Samantha as a result of breach of duty of care. This is valid as Samantha did suffer from severe pain and was hospitalized from consuming the pills. Remoteness of damage is the extent to which A1 should be liable for consequences of the breach of duty. The “egg shell skull” rule can be used. It is applied to scenarios where due to the claimant’s innate physical susceptibility to illness or injury she suffered from extreme damage is triggered by initially foreseeable damage caused by A1’s negligence. Although A1 was unaware if Samantha had any pre-existing conditions, consumption of uncertified chemical substances will be harmful to the body and cause damage. Hence, the damage is proven not to be too remote.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Samantha has to establish all three elements in order to succeed in establishing that A1 is liable for Tort of Negligence and claim against A1.

References

1. Jordan, R. and Warren, W. (1997). Commercial law. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.

2. Ravindran, M. (2010). LexisNexis annotated statutes of Singapore. Singapore: LexisNexis.

3. Phang, A. (2012). The law of contract in Singapore. Singapore: Academy Pub.

4. Kumar, H. and Kaan, (2006). The Law of Torts. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law.

5. Lawson, R. (2011). Exclusion clauses and unfair contract terms. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

6. Ribeiro, R. (2002). Damages and other remedies for breach of commercial contracts. London: Thorogood.