Lucy, who owns a saloon, entered into a contract with Beauty Sdn Bhd, a manufacturer of shampoo, for the purchase of 300 boxes of 'high quality, super shining shampoo'. When the product was delivered, Lucy found the shampoo to be very poor quality and unsuitable for hair. She wishes to sue Beauty Sdn Bhd for breach of contract. However, Beauty Sdn Bhd denies liability relying on a clause in the contract which states, 'Beauty Sdn Bhd does not give any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality of the product contracted for'. Advise Lucy whether she may be successful if she sues Beauty Sdn Bhd for breach of contract. (30 marks)
To answer the question of whether Lucy may be successful in suing Beauty Sdn Bhd for breach of contract, we need to analyze the situation and key legal principles involved.
Firstly, we should consider the terms of the contract between Lucy and Beauty Sdn Bhd. The contract includes a clause stating that Beauty Sdn Bhd does not give any warranty, express or implied, as to the quality of the product contracted for. This clause brings up the issue of whether this disclaimer of warranty is valid and enforceable.
In many jurisdictions, including common law jurisdictions, there are laws and legal principles that govern contracts. One of these principles is the principle of freedom of contract, which generally allows parties to agree on the terms of their contract as long as they are not illegal or contrary to public policy. This means that parties can include clauses that limit or exclude certain warranties or liabilities.
However, there are limitations to freedom of contract, particularly in relation to consumer contracts. Consumer protection laws are designed to provide a level of protection to consumers who are often in a weaker bargaining position compared to businesses. These laws may restrict or invalidate certain contractual provisions that are considered unfair or unreasonable.
In Lucy's case, she purchased the shampoo from Beauty Sdn Bhd for use in her salon. It can be argued that she may be considered a consumer in this scenario, and consumer protection laws may apply.
Generally, consumer protection laws require that products sold to consumers must meet certain standards of quality and fitness for purpose. This means that even if a contract includes a disclaimer of warranty, it may not necessarily absolve the seller from all liability if the product does not meet those standards.
Therefore, Lucy may have a valid argument that the clause in the contract excluding any warranty as to the quality of the shampoo is unfair or unreasonable under consumer protection laws. She could argue that the product delivered by Beauty Sdn Bhd was of poor quality and unsuitable for its intended purpose, which would constitute a breach of contract.
To determine Lucy's chances of success, it would be necessary to examine the specific consumer protection laws applicable in her jurisdiction, as well as any relevant case law or legal precedents. Consulting with a lawyer who specializes in contract law or consumer protection law would be advisable to get a more accurate assessment of Lucy's legal position and chances of success in suing Beauty Sdn Bhd for breach of contract.