Need an argumentative essay on The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA). Needs to be 16 pages. Please no plagiarism.Firstly, the “consumer” test is imperative as a pre-requisite to remedies for breach of

Need an argumentative essay on The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SGA). Needs to be 16 pages. Please no plagiarism.

Firstly, the “consumer” test is imperative as a pre-requisite to remedies for breach of implied terms under the SGA. For example, section 15A provides that if there is a breach of the implied terms under the SGA, then “if the buyer does not deal as a consumer, the breach is not to be treated as a breach of condition but may be treated as a breach of warranty”.&nbsp. It is submitted that section 13 of the SGA is vital to determining a buyer’s position in enforcing rights against the seller and in turn correlates to the effect of section 14(2) of the SGA, which provides that “where the seller sells goods in the course of a business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality ”. Indeed, the buyer’s right to reject goods under section 15A of the SGA is conditional on breach of the terms implied under section 13 and 14 respectively.

Firstly, Section 13 of the SGA asserts that “where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with that description”. Furthermore, section 13(3) expressly states that “a sale of goods is not prevented from being a sale by the description by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer”. In order constitute a sale of description as stated under section 13 of the SGA. MacLeod posits that it is sufficient if the description is an “identifying description”. For example, in Beale v Taylor, an advertisement offering a car for sale described the product as a “Herald, convertible white 1961”. However, this proved to be a misrepresentation in light of the fact that bits of two cars had been put together. The two parts comprising the car did include parts of the 1961 model, however, the other parts belonged to an older model. Whilst this decision was prior to the SGA, the Court of Appeal held that the description of the car did not correspond to the description in the advertisement, which therefore breached the commensurate s.13 implied a term in the sale contract.