Greg is a property developer who specialises in building new houses Coursework

Greg is a property developer who specialises in building new houses and flats. His current project is the renovation of a statel - Coursework Example This report seeks to illuminate the weaknesses and strengths of Mr. Greg’s case of suing Sprewfits’ and his quest to receive compensation for damages upon the breaching of the contract terms. Mr. Greg ripped one of the pipes from the plastic and made an observation based on sight. Section 15 clearly states that if items are bought in a large amount or bulk and tests a sample of the item the supplier has to make sure that all the remaining should correspond with the sample1. The act clearly states that the buyer checks a small number and verifies the delivery goods. Mr. Greg rips one off and verifies it out. Apparently it happens to be one of the best pipes. If Mr. Greg would have checked for a couple more others, there is the probability that he would have seen at least one default pipe and reject the goods, but because of the trust in his supplier, one was all it took. In this case, an assumption was correctly made by Mr. Greg. The product looked okay prompting him to sign the delivery report, from which he made an assumption that all the pipes were all correct; in this case, an assumption of reasonableness. 25% of the pipes proved defective; they were either large or bent beyond use and most of them did not go in line with the sample. This does not make the cut under the contract of sale of goods act, by law these pipes have to be compensated even though there is no legal and direct warranty. Mr. Greg can however, have the terms of the contract withdrawn in case one of the parties takes advantage of the terms of the contract. According to the unfair contract terms of 1979, a contract of terms may be rendered useless or the contract withdrawn if one of the parties seems to make a deliberate breach knowing that the contract covers to protect his breach. The law has the power to render the contract powerless with the fact that Sprewfit intentionally delivered wrong goods as per the contract terms. In this case, Mr. Greg may have the contract nullif ied and have the faulty goods replaced with quality ones. Sprewfit is liable for replacement and compensation of the faulty good to Mr. Greg. According to the Unfair contract terms act 1979, subject to section 2 of the negligence of liability2. The act makes it clear that the a person can not be referred to a contract term when he or she intentionally breaches the agreement; and then claim to have the contract restrict him from liability for negligence, in this case it has resulted in a loss and a damage. This act makes Sprewfits responsible for the results of his act of negligence and is entitled to compensate Mr. Greg on the related sections. Mr. Greg describes the kind of pipes he needed to Ajay as 10mill in diameter, 1000 meters in total length and of high temperature resistance. Section 13 (1) provides that where the buyer is sold commodities by description, the goods must be in line with this description, for instance the Harlington v Christopher Hull case. He did not get that , if in any case the supplier had brought the right pipes and they were damaged then it would be considered as negligence on Mr. Greg’