Dear Mirror Lawyer, My dad bought a brand new cross-country vehicle from one of the vehicle marketing companies in Accra. He was given one year warranty on the vehicle.
After using the car for a week, he noticed some defects in the engine and the electronic windows of the vehicle.
However, because he needed the vehicle urgently for his business at the mines in the Western Region, he took the vehicle along and used it for four months during which the engine broke down on several occasions.
My dad got local fitters in the mine site to fix it. The vehicle cannot be used now and when he returned it to the dealers in Accra to fix it or replace it, they refused to accept the vehicle.
Dear Pipim, Section 26(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1962, Act 137 states that unless a different intention appears, the property in the goods passes under a contract of sale when they are delivered to the buyer.
Risk is, however, associated with the passing of the property to the buyer. The law, therefore, enjoins a buyer to take all necessary steps to inspect the property and satisfy himself before buying it.
This is known in law as caveat emptor which means “let the buyer beware”. This maxim implies that the buyer must be cautious as the risk is his and not that of the seller.
This is because when the buyer of goods had required no warranty from the seller, he took the risk of quality on himself and had no remedy if he chose to rely on the bare representation of the seller unless he could show that representation had been fraudulent.
Where there is a Warranty, then the buyer is enjoined to return the goods the moment a fault is detected, otherwise the seller can reject the goods if a third party handles the goods in any way.
This provision, notwithstanding the law, also imposes a condition that the goods will be reasonably fit for the buyer’s purposes.
As a general rule, section 51 of the Sale of Goods Act, says that a buyer may not reject goods which he has accepted from a seller.
However, if circumstances warrant any decision to reject, section 52 says that if the buyer does not, within a reasonable time, inform the seller that he has rejected the goods, he is deemed to have accepted the goods.
This problem frequently occurs in the ordinary course of commerce in this country. It is not surprising that the courts in this country have had the opportunity to deal with similar facts.
In the case of Rockson v Armah (1975) 2 GLR 116, the appellant sold the second-hand Mercedes Benz car to the respondent who made an initial payment.
Upon delivery of the car, the respondent discovered that it had been involved in an accident and had suffered considerable damage.
The appellant agreed to repair the car and took it to his wayside mechanics who worked on it after which the respondent took delivery.
Respondent used the car for two months after which he decided to repudiate the contract on the grounds that he had discovered that it had latent defects.
The Court of Appeal held that while it was within the right of the respondent to reject the car on the grounds that it was fundamentally different from what was bargained for, there has been an unreasonable delay by the Respondent in retaining a second-hand car for almost two months.
The court further held that time was of the essence for consideration in the contract of sale and that a long period of retention must be equated with acceptance, the transfer of the property in the goods and the assumption of all risks.
In this particular case, your dad detected various problems with the car. The law requires him within the Warranty period to immediately abrogate the contract on the detection of the defect or return the vehicle for it to be fixed or replaced.
If your dad had taken that step timeously, he would have got a replaced vehicle or had the defect fixed at no extra cost to him.
Rather, he chose to use the vehicle four months during which he handed it over to other mechanics to interfere with the vehicle before attempting to return it to the dealers.
Just like the case of Rockson v Armah, four months is an unreasonable delay on the part of your dad to attempt to return the vehicle to the dealers.
It is very important that members of the public adopt the habit of inspecting vehicles and other goods they purchase with their own technical advisors and satisfy themselves as to the quality and fitness before proceeding with the purchase.
The legal warning is, “let the buyer beware before making a purchase”. In developed countries, consumer protection legislation has been passed, which protects the ultimate consumer from defective products released unto the market.
It is about time our Parliament followed suit with the passage of our own consumer protection law.
