Potential Claims Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for PharmX Ltd

  Potential Claims Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 for PharmX Ltd PharmX Ltd, as a pharmaceutical and life sciences firm, relies on precise temperature control for its healthcare product to operate effectively. When PharmX approached Heatec Ltd, a manufacturer of heating and temperature devices, and clearly communicated the requirement for a device capable of reaching 40 degrees Celsius, Heatec assured that they would provide equipment meeting this criterion. However, upon delivery, it was discovered that the device could only reach a maximum temperature of 32 degrees Celsius, leading to underperformance of PharmX products and demands for refunds from clients. In this scenario, PharmX Ltd may have potential claims under the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Breach of Contract Implied Terms 1. Fitness for Purpose: The Sale of Goods Act 1979 implies a term that goods sold must be fit for the purpose for which they are intended. In this case, the heating device supplied by Heatec Ltd was not capable of reaching the required temperature of 40 degrees Celsius as communicated by PharmX Ltd. This constitutes a breach of the implied term of fitness for purpose. 2. Satisfactory Quality: Another implied term under the Act is that goods should be of satisfactory quality. The failure of the heating device to meet the specified temperature requirement indicates a lack of satisfactory quality, as it did not perform as expected and had a significant impact on PharmX's products. Remedies 1. Right to Reject: PharmX Ltd may have the right to reject the heating device and claim a full refund from Heatec Ltd due to its failure to meet the agreed-upon specifications. 2. Damages: PharmX may also be entitled to claim damages for any losses incurred as a result of the underperformance of their products caused by the inadequate heating device supplied by Heatec. 3. Rescission: PharmX could potentially seek rescission of the contract if Heatec's breach of contract is deemed fundamental and goes to the root of the agreement. Conclusion In conclusion, PharmX Ltd has grounds to pursue potential claims under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 against Heatec Ltd for supplying a heating device that failed to meet the specified requirements. By demonstrating that Heatec's product did not conform to the agreed-upon standards and subsequently caused financial harm to their business, PharmX may seek remedies such as rejection, damages, or rescission to address the situation and protect their interests as a consumer under the Act. It is advisable for PharmX Ltd to seek legal counsel to navigate the complexities of contract law and consumer rights in this scenario and determine the most appropriate course of action to remedy the situation.

Sample Answer