How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Richard - Bizlaw Your Own Question
Richard - Bizlaw
Richard - Bizlaw, Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 10645
Experience:  30 years of corporate, litigation and international law
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Richard - Bizlaw is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Hi there, thanks again... I accept this answer... I have

Resolved Question:

Hi there,
thanks again... I accept this answer...

I have another question relating to my first question.

Assuming that John had bought the lot, and found out later that 75% of the trees are 4 1/2 years old and not 5 years as it said in the ad, also 5% of them were affected with a disease (in the ad, it states they are free from any disease). John wants to return the trees but Silly refuses, stating that is neither here nor there and 5% is so slight and that John can not the whole lot.

Is Silly right under the Sales of Goods Act 1979?

I personaly have 2 views,
the first is that Silly is right if John has accepted the trees and informed Silly of his acceptance, however, he maybe able to return the damaged one's under SS35 of the act.
My second view is that Silly is not right if there was no acceptance, this is under SS13 of the act 'Description' and John can return the lot.

please advise if one is true or both or none.

Submitted: 8 years ago.
Category: Business Law
Expert:  Richard - Bizlaw replied 8 years ago.

To return all the trees is a revocation of the contract and will not be permitted unless the basic goal of the contract can be said to be frustrated. Even if John accepted the trees, if he did so without knowing of the non conforming conditions, he is not precluded from recovering his damages. I do not know if there are any damages for trees that are 4 1/2 years old rather than 5 years old. HOwever, the diseased trees would be the basis for damages. Again whether he could return them will depend on the nature of the disease. If it cost $5 to cure the trees of the disease, the damage would be $5 per tree and that would be too small to rescind the contract.


Thank you. If you think this was especially helpful you can authorize a bonus. In any event I would appreciate it if you would provide feedback on the answers I provided.

Customer: replied 8 years ago.
Thank you..
there are no damages for the trees that are 4 1/2 years, however, these are rare trees and their age affect their selling price (its worth mentioning that John is buying these so that he can sell them in his Garden center and make little profit) which means that he has to hold on to them for 6 months and takes care of them from disease then sell them after they are 5 years old.

please advise

thanks again
Expert:  Richard - Bizlaw replied 8 years ago.
From what you are saying there is a damage for the trees being 4 1/2 years old. The damage is the cost incurred in carrying for the trees and carrying the cost of purchase for much longer. For example, if it costs $50 per month per tree to maintain until sold and if the trees were 5 years old they would sell in 2 months then the damage per tree would be $50 per month for six months until they got to five when they could be sold. In relation to the total purchase price this might be sufficiently large to justify rescinding the contract.
Richard - Bizlaw and 3 other Business Law Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  Richard - Bizlaw replied 8 years ago.

If the follow up response is satisfactory please accept it and provide feed back.