Essay Framework for Evaluation Questions – Section B’s, Q.3 (25 marks)
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Point of Law AO1 Description of the law AO3 Issue/Criticism AO3 Why a problem AO3 Why not a problem
If the parties to the contract had This imposes a very strict Sometimes it will be implied However, it could be argued that this
. thought about it would they have and potentially unrealistic into the contract even if it area of the law is effective seeing
agreed that the suggested term was standard was something that they that the court is unlikely to imply a
Officious obviously going to be in the contract thought would not be a term into the contract using this rule
Bystander (Marks and Spencer v Paribas possibility which can cause if it is inconsistent with an express
Securities) uncertainty between parties term of the contract (BP Refinery
as to whether the courts will (Westport) v Shire of Hastings) or if it
imply certain terms isn’t clear that both parties would in
fact have agreed to the term (Luxor
(Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper)
If there is a customary way of doing This area of the law is fair This is fair as it prevents It would seem fair that things can be
things in a particular type of business and works well parties from suing over implied by custom as this means
dealing it can be implied by the court something that they have that it is similar for all types of
Custom/prior (Hutton v Warren). If the parties have been happy with for a long contracts made which prevents
dealings made prior contracts within them they period of time inconsistency in contracts and
will be implied into any subsequent dealings
contract based on that prior course of
dealings (Spurling v Bradshaw)
S13 = goods must correspond with any This works well This is effective as it This gives them an opportunity to
Sales of Goods description given (Beale v Taylor) ensures that consumers right what has been wronged and
S14(2) = goods must be of satisfactory are protected even if an seeing that this is implied it prevents
Act 1979 quality which includes fit for purpose, item is faulty sellers/ businesses taking advantage
appearance and finish, freedom from of consumers by providing them with
minor defects and safety and durability. unsatisfactory items.
S20 = for the first 30 days you are This is fair This protects peoples right This gives more protection to
Consumer Rights entitled to a full refund to a refund and ensures consumers than previous acts. In
S23 = after 30 days entitled to a repair/ that if goods are not of addition to this because it is implied
Act 2015 replacement. If this is not possible then satisfactory quality that by statute (an act of parliament) it
a full/partial refund. This will occur if the there will be a remedy means that it can’t be excluded by
cost of repair is disproportionate, it is the seller/business.
impossible, will cause significant
inconvenience or take an unreasonable
amount of time
Reforms: although the law seems to be fair as it is it could be improved by less court interference in some contracts by the removal of the officious bystander test
as this can cause confusion and uncertainty for the parties.
10 marks AO1 DESCRIBE 15 marks AO3 EVALUATE
Point of Law AO1 Description of the law AO3 Issue/Criticism AO3 Why a problem AO3 Why not a problem
If the parties to the contract had This imposes a very strict Sometimes it will be implied However, it could be argued that this
. thought about it would they have and potentially unrealistic into the contract even if it area of the law is effective seeing
agreed that the suggested term was standard was something that they that the court is unlikely to imply a
Officious obviously going to be in the contract thought would not be a term into the contract using this rule
Bystander (Marks and Spencer v Paribas possibility which can cause if it is inconsistent with an express
Securities) uncertainty between parties term of the contract (BP Refinery
as to whether the courts will (Westport) v Shire of Hastings) or if it
imply certain terms isn’t clear that both parties would in
fact have agreed to the term (Luxor
(Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper)
If there is a customary way of doing This area of the law is fair This is fair as it prevents It would seem fair that things can be
things in a particular type of business and works well parties from suing over implied by custom as this means
dealing it can be implied by the court something that they have that it is similar for all types of
Custom/prior (Hutton v Warren). If the parties have been happy with for a long contracts made which prevents
dealings made prior contracts within them they period of time inconsistency in contracts and
will be implied into any subsequent dealings
contract based on that prior course of
dealings (Spurling v Bradshaw)
S13 = goods must correspond with any This works well This is effective as it This gives them an opportunity to
Sales of Goods description given (Beale v Taylor) ensures that consumers right what has been wronged and
S14(2) = goods must be of satisfactory are protected even if an seeing that this is implied it prevents
Act 1979 quality which includes fit for purpose, item is faulty sellers/ businesses taking advantage
appearance and finish, freedom from of consumers by providing them with
minor defects and safety and durability. unsatisfactory items.
S20 = for the first 30 days you are This is fair This protects peoples right This gives more protection to
Consumer Rights entitled to a full refund to a refund and ensures consumers than previous acts. In
S23 = after 30 days entitled to a repair/ that if goods are not of addition to this because it is implied
Act 2015 replacement. If this is not possible then satisfactory quality that by statute (an act of parliament) it
a full/partial refund. This will occur if the there will be a remedy means that it can’t be excluded by
cost of repair is disproportionate, it is the seller/business.
impossible, will cause significant
inconvenience or take an unreasonable
amount of time
Reforms: although the law seems to be fair as it is it could be improved by less court interference in some contracts by the removal of the officious bystander test
as this can cause confusion and uncertainty for the parties.
