SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False

Oui ou Non

Parties jouées 0

Créer une copie

À propos de cette activité

A fast quiz on the SGA and CRA terms basics.

Créé par

yayamao 030

Malaysia

Téléchargez la version pour jouer sur papier

Top 10 résultats

Il n'y a toujours pas de résultats pour ce jeu. Soyez le premier à apparaître dans le classement! Connectez-vous pour vous identifier.

Créez votre propre jeu gratuite à partir de notre créateur de jeu

Affrontez vos amis pour voir qui obtient le meilleur score dans ce jeu

Créer un défi

		%
	Anonyme	%
		%
		%

Imprimez votre jeu

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False


SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/FalseVersion en ligne A fast quiz on the SGA and CRA terms basics. par yayamao 030 1 Section 14(3) SGA 1979 provides that if a buyer makes a particular purpose known, the goods must be reasonably fit for that purpose. Yes No 2 The course of business requirement for s.14 operates only for dealers in the exact type of goods sold. Yes No 3 Steels & Busks Ltd v Bleecker Bik & Co Ltd determined that a bulk defect undetectable by reasonable examination always breaches s.15(2). Yes No 4 Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd established that high-end cars are always merchantable even with major ongoing defects. Yes No 5 In Heil v Hedges, it was held that pork chops need not be cooked thoroughly for them to be merchantable. Yes No 6 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills found that underwear with dermatitis is merchantable if the consumer can avoid washing before wear. Yes No 7 Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd established that if a buyer’s condition is idiosyncratic, the seller is always liable regardless of communication. Yes No 8 The term 'making known' for s.14(3) has no bearing on the level of foreseeability of the buyer's purpose. Yes No 9 Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd concluded that a rogue car submerged underwater still qualifies as merchantable quality due to price considerations. Yes No 10 Teheran-Europe Corpn v ST Belton Ltd held that a foreign buyer cannot rely on the seller's skill if the buyer is based in a foreign country. Yes No 11 The 'reasonable person' standard in s.14(2A) is purely subjective and only considers the buyer's personal expectations. Yes No 12 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills concluded that underwear with excessive sulphites renders the product merchantable if it can be washed out easily. Yes No 13 In Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze & Brass Co Ltd, there is no concept of reliance when determining fitness for a particular purpose. Yes No 14 The concept of latent defects is excluded from relief under the SGA; only apparent defects matter at contract time. Yes No 15 Section 12(1) and 12(2) create a separate standard unrelated to 'satisfactory quality' in SGA 1979. Yes No 16 Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd established that defects originating from downstream contracts are always ignored. Yes No 17 The term 'satisfactory quality' in s.14(2) SGA 1979 only applies to consumer transactions, not business-to-business contracts. Yes No 18 Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals held that a seller need not warn if the buyer is unaware of latent hazards in containers. Yes No 19 Geddling v Marsh ruled that packaging is never considered part of the goods for s.14(2) purposes. Yes No 20 Section 15(2) SGA 1979 states that the bulk of goods must exactly match the sample in every visible detail, regardless of detectability. Yes No

Vous pouvez intégrer le jeu dans un LMS compatible avec LTI 1.1 ou LTI 1.3 comme Canvas, Moodle ou Blackboard. Les scores seront ainsi automatiquement enregistrés dans le carnet de notes de la plateforme.

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False

Oui ou Non

À propos de cette activité

Créé par

Téléchargez la version pour jouer sur papier

Top Jeux

Oui ou Non

Grammys for best song/record

Oui ou Non

Adjective Checker

Oui ou Non

Foot and Ankle Anatomy Quiz

Oui ou Non

Is it created with Artificial Intelligence? - Complete game

Oui ou Non

Is it true?

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/FalseVersion en ligne

par yayamao 030

Section 14(3) SGA 1979 provides that if a buyer makes a particular purpose known, the goods must be reasonably fit for that purpose.

The course of business requirement for s.14 operates only for dealers in the exact type of goods sold.

Steels & Busks Ltd v Bleecker Bik & Co Ltd determined that a bulk defect undetectable by reasonable examination always breaches s.15(2).

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd established that high-end cars are always merchantable even with major ongoing defects.

In Heil v Hedges, it was held that pork chops need not be cooked thoroughly for them to be merchantable.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills found that underwear with dermatitis is merchantable if the consumer can avoid washing before wear.

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd established that if a buyer’s condition is idiosyncratic, the seller is always liable regardless of communication.

The term 'making known' for s.14(3) has no bearing on the level of foreseeability of the buyer's purpose.

Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd concluded that a rogue car submerged underwater still qualifies as merchantable quality due to price considerations.

Teheran-Europe Corpn v ST Belton Ltd held that a foreign buyer cannot rely on the seller's skill if the buyer is based in a foreign country.

The 'reasonable person' standard in s.14(2A) is purely subjective and only considers the buyer's personal expectations.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills concluded that underwear with excessive sulphites renders the product merchantable if it can be washed out easily.

In Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze & Brass Co Ltd, there is no concept of reliance when determining fitness for a particular purpose.

The concept of latent defects is excluded from relief under the SGA; only apparent defects matter at contract time.

Section 12(1) and 12(2) create a separate standard unrelated to 'satisfactory quality' in SGA 1979.

Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd established that defects originating from downstream contracts are always ignored.

The term 'satisfactory quality' in s.14(2) SGA 1979 only applies to consumer transactions, not business-to-business contracts.

Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals held that a seller need not warn if the buyer is unaware of latent hazards in containers.

Geddling v Marsh ruled that packaging is never considered part of the goods for s.14(2) purposes.

Section 15(2) SGA 1979 states that the bulk of goods must exactly match the sample in every visible detail, regardless of detectability.