Question

Shirley bought a brand new car from Leyland Motors. The contract of sale contains the following exclusion clause: “Leyland Motors does not make any guarantees whatsoever as to the quality or fitness of this car. The buyer purchases at their own risk.” It turned out that what Shirley bought was not a brand new car, but a slightly used demonstrator model. Now she wants to get out of her contract with Leyland Motors. Shirley argues that Leyland Motors breached their contract by selling her a used car. Leyland Motors on the other hand argues that the exclusion clause in the contract excuses it from all liability. Who is correct? (Please support your answer with principles learned regarding exclusion clauses in contracts.

Answer 1

As per the given fact,the situation explains a business deal regarding purchasing of a brand new car.In my estimation consumer should check every detail of the good which they supposed to purchase .ln the present case Shirley bought an expensive motar car ,she should get the every detail ofmotar car from inside to outside. She should check all the function of car before buying the car.As she fail to do so ,it is her fault . On the contrary Leyland motar should also be honest to there customers,they should not deceive their customer at any cause.lt is a type of fraud done to Shirley.In this situation ,Shirley should took help of consumer protection unit which will legally help to solve the problem . As per the exclusion clauses ,Shirley can't resist the deal.only legal consumer law can helpshirley to get the brand new car if possible. In this instances Leyland motar is not correct but there is fault of Shirley also.lt won't happen if she had checked all function accurately .

If you get the answer to the question please give a thumbs up thank you!!!