Home/ Questions/Q 3678
Next
Answered
Jemshah
  • 0
Enlightened
Asked: 2023-01-20T14:12:54+00:00 In:

Lubendi ordered for five sacks of pishori rice from Maira Traders. Upon delivery, Lubendi accepted the rice and paid the price by Mpesa. Two days later, Lubendi called Maira Traders, saying that she is returning the rice because most of the rice grains had crushed and wants to be refunded her money. However, Maira Traders held that they would neither take back the rice nor refund the money.Lubendi is aggrieved and intends to file a suit against Maira Traders. Explain the legal principles applicable in this case. (10 marks)November 2022

  • 0

Lubendi ordered for five sacks of pishori rice from Maira Traders. Upon delivery,
Lubendi accepted the rice and paid the price by Mpesa. Two days later, Lubendi called Maira Traders, saying that she is returning the rice because most of the rice grains had crushed and wants to be refunded her money. However, Maira Traders held that they would neither take back the rice nor refund the money.Lubendi is aggrieved and intends to file a suit against Maira Traders.

Explain the legal principles applicable in this case. (10 marks)November 2022

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Best Answer
    Enlightened
    1. Contract law: The purchase of the five sacks of pishori rice by Lubendi from Maira Traders constitutes a contract between the two parties. Under contract law, both parties are bound by the terms of the contract, including the terms of payment, delivery, and quality of the goods.
    2. Sale of goods law: The sale of the five sacks of pishori rice by Maira Traders to Lubendi is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. Under this law, goods must be of merchantable quality, which means they must be fit for the purpose for which they are intended and must be of a quality that is satisfactory for the buyer.
    3. Consumer protection law: As a consumer, Lubendi has the right to expect that the goods she purchases are of a reasonable quality and fit for the purpose for which they are intended. If the goods are not of merchantable quality, Lubendi has the right to return the goods and be refunded her money.
    4. Acceptance of goods: The fact that Lubendi accepted the delivery of the five sacks of rice and paid the price by Mpesa, it can be argued that she accepted the goods and thus, was satisfied with the quality of the rice at that time.
    5. Right to reject: The consumer protection law gives the consumer the right to reject goods that are not of merchantable quality within a reasonable time after delivery. In this case, it is not clear from the information provided whether Lubendi rejected the goods within a reasonable time after delivery.
    6. Limitation of liability: Under the Sale of Goods Act, a seller of goods is not liable for any breach of the implied conditions or warranties if he can prove that the buyer knew of the defects of the goods at the time of purchase. In this case, it is not clear from the information provided whether Lubendi was aware of the crushed rice grains at the time of purchase and if Maira Traders can prove this, they may be able to limit their liability.
    • 0