Dough and Bonnie are likely to argue that there was misrepresentation on the part of the brick manufacturer. This is in light of the fact that Dough and Bonnie sought the expert advice from the manufacturer regarding the best bricks that the two could use to cover the exterior of their house. Although the manufacturer’s sales representative showed Dough and Bonnie several types of bricks, he was particular on one type of brick and recommended it to Dough and Bonnie. They relied on the manufacturer’s representative’s advice and proceeded to purchase the type of brick that the representative recommended.
Accordingly Dough and Bonnie would argue that the whole process was a sale by sample. The representative showed Dough and Bonnie a sample of the brick that he recommended to them. The ordinarily sale by sample brings into existence implied terms that include: Goods will correspond with the description, that the seller has the right to sell the goods, goods must be o satisfactory quality, goods will correspond with the sample, and that goods will be fit for the purpose. Dough and Bonnie will raise an argument to the effect that the manufacturer’s representative had the authority to sell the bricks hence he was acting on behalf of the brick manufacturer. They will also contend that the bricks were not of satisfactory quality contrary to the representative’s description. They can also state that the bricks that were delivered to them did not correspond with the sample that the representative presented to them hence the bricks were not fit for the purpose, despite informing the representative of the intended purpose of the bricks.
Arguments by the Manufacturer
The manufacturer is likely to raise various issues key among them being that the alleged manufacturer’s representative had no authority to sell. Is this regard, the manufacturer could argue that the issue of misrepresentation does not arise. The manufacturer could also argue that the bricks were in good condition and were fit for the purpose and that it is not the bricks that were faulty but the installation. Hence poor installation of the bricks caused the bricks to blister and flake. The manufacture could also argue that the bricks were up to standard and in good condition but that the freezing and thawing temperatures were exceptional hence the manufacturer is not to blame.
The manufacturer is liable for the loss of Dough and Bonnie. This is because the buyers relied on the advice of the manufacturer’s representative believing that he was competent enough to render an informed counsel. As such, the manufacturer is vicariously liable for the actions of its representative.
The property in the goods passes to the buyer when it is intended to pass. In this scenario it is apparent that the property in the laptop was intended to pass when the buyer (Chris) ascertained the goods (laptop). As such, only when Chris ascertains the laptop will the property pass to Chris. For the purpose of ascertaining, the intention of the parties with regard to the contractual terms and the circumstances of the case are essential. If the buyer is supposed to do something to the goods in order to make the goods be in a deliverable state, the property of such goods passes upon the buyer doing such thing and notifying the buyer.
With regard to the foregoing, Chris is responsible for the theft of the laptop. This is because the property in the laptop passed as soon as the Best Computer Store through Pierre finished loading the software and notified Chris on the same. This therefore implies that risk had been transferred to Chris. The fact that best computer store had called Chris to inform him that the laptop was ready for him to pick up does means that he was liable because he did failed to pick it up as agreed.