Case 1Q1：Maggie 没受伤，她是否有权利起诉 SELLER；商品是 in a sale,是否影响 MAGGIE 的权利？（买方和卖方的关系）A1：1，Yes, she can do that.2，The basic law is the seller violation the Implied Terms of SOGA 1979. It is include four terms.a) Section 12 SOGA 1979 Implied Terms of Titleb) Section 13 SOGA 1979 Sale by Descriptionc) Section 14 SOGA 1979 Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for Purpose.d) Section 15 SOGA 1979 Sale by SampleThis case was violation Section 14 SOGA 1979.Section 14 implied two terms: Satisfactory Quality and Reasonable Fitness for the Purpose. The major violation of this case is Satisfactory Quality.The standard of Section 14 of SOGA 1979 is “that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant)and all other relevant circumstances”.There are factors that are listed in Section 14 of SOGA 1979 as potentially relevant in appropriate cases:Fitness for the purpose for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied. Appearance and finishFreedom from minor defectsSafety and DurabilityIn this case, the tumble dryer is lack of safety and durability. Maggie just bought it two months, so it still a new tumble dryer. It was caught fire. Clearly, it is lack of durability. The tumble is a latent defect in the wiring that lead to detonate. So we said it is lack of safety.3,Maggie bought the tumble dryer in a sale, but it does not diminish the buyers rights unless they are classed as “seconds” etc or a particular defect is brought to the attention of the buyer as being the reason for the reduction in price. Maggie did not know the bug of the tumble dryer before she buy it. So Maggie s rights should not be diminished.4,The cited case is Thomson v J Sears Co(1926), the pursuer purchased boots for himself and suffered periostosis of the foot as a result of the insole having crumpled up and become knotted and nodular. It should be obvious that the boots were going to be worn as footwear.In the case of Priest V Last(1903),a buyer was scalded after using a hot water bottle and was successful in suing the seller on the basis that the bottle was unfit for the purpose.Strict liability also applies and it is no defence that the seller has done all that is reasonable to avoid breach of the provision.(nao)In the case of Frost V Aylesbury Dairy CO ltd(1905),where the plaintiffs wife died from consuming milk containing germs of typhoid fever and the dairy could not defend the action on the basis that they could not reasonably have discovered the presence of the virus in the milk.(pao)Q2:Charlie 受伤，MAGGIE 该怎么办？（ the injury of Charlie）A2:1, Charlie can not impaled the seller. Because that he is not the buyer. Charlie no contractual relationship with the seller. The provisions of SOGA 1979 only apply to the buyer, not to any other people or party. He has no claim against the seller under the Act.2,There is a case that Donoghue V Sterenson 1932,Mrs Donoghue drunk some of mixture and her friend then lifted the bottle and was pouring out the remainder into a tumbler when a decomposed snail floated out of he bottle and into her drink. Mrs Donoghue suffered shock and illness as a result. She claimed damages against the manufacturer. The House of Lords ruled that the manufacturer would have to pay Mrs Donoghue damages as he owed a duty of care to anyone using his product. He had failed in that duty of care.3,Accroding to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 that the seller has to return both the purchase price and compensate for any damage. The buyer does not have to prove negligence on the part of the seller. To the dangerous products causing damages or injury, manufacturer should assume the strict liability. Just presume fault of manufacturer.4In this case, Charlie should according to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to implead. The process should not prove the fault of manufacturer, just mention Charlie was injury.Q3:Seller 说是厂商的责任，零售商是否可以就此免责。A3：1,No, they can not exclude liability.2,According to the Strict Liability in SOGA 1979 that the buyer should prove it is a faulty good, but the buyer should not prove negligence. The seller could damage to the buyer and then demand compensation to the manufacturer.3,Maggie can get all of the compensation, include personal injury and goods damage. But she can not demand compensation about injury of Charlie. Because that Charlie is not the buyer.Q4:在告示之后的损失，免责条款是否生效？（there is a notice to exclusion clause）A4:1,The seller will fail. They can not exclusion clause. 2,According to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.定义（you will recall from your previous study of the law of contract that for an exclusion clause, weather valid or not, to be considered as part of thee contract it must be :“incorporated” or form part of the contract. Consumer contracts for the supply of goods and services are covered by the Act, as well as contracts of employment and apprenticeship.）.In Section 16 of Unfair