Oxford BA: Sale of Goods Exam Paper

Alexia operates a boutique clothing store and contracts to purchase 100 designer handbags from Bruno's wholesale company for £15,000, delivery due 1st March. On 28th February, Bruno discovers the handbags have a manufacturing defect making them unsellable and informs Alexia he cannot deliver. Alexia immediately sources replacement handbags from Carlo for £18,000. Meanwhile, Bruno locates 100 identical handbags from another supplier and offers to deliver these on 5th March. Alexia refuses, stating the contract is terminated. Bruno argues the delay is minimal and his offer of substitute goods should excuse the breach. On 10th March, the original defective handbags are repaired and Bruno again offers delivery. The market price for such handbags has risen to £20,000. Alexia seeks damages for the additional £3,000 paid to Carlo plus loss of profits from delayed sales. Advise the parties.

Denise owns a restaurant and orders a commercial freezer from Electromart Ltd for £8,000, specifying it must maintain temperatures of -18°C for her seafood storage requirements. The contract includes Electromart's standard terms stating 'all conditions and warranties are excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law.' The freezer is delivered and installed but only reaches -12°C. Denise's seafood stock worth £2,000 spoils, and she loses £5,000 in cancelled bookings when environmental health officers temporarily close her restaurant. Denise also discovers the freezer has a second-hand compressor, though it was sold as new. She demands a replacement freezer, but Electromart offers only to repair the temperature control, claiming their exclusion clause prevents other remedies. Three weeks later, before any repair, the freezer breaks down completely. Advise Denise on her rights and remedies.

Critically evaluate the extent to which the concept of 'satisfactory quality' under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 provides adequate protection for buyers in the modern commercial context. Consider whether the current statutory framework strikes an appropriate balance between the interests of buyers and sellers.

To what extent has the doctrine of nemo dat quod non habet been successfully modified by the exceptions contained in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and other legislation to meet the needs of modern commerce? Critically analyze whether the current law achieves an appropriate balance between protecting true owners and promoting commercial certainty.