Gregory went to Collegiate Sports Ltd. with his dad, who asked for some shoes for Gregory suitable for playing squash. Gregory was given a pair of running shoes suitable only for jogging. His dad paid by cash. That evening, wearing the new shoes while playing squash, Gregory broke his ankle. In the ensuing lawsuit, the statement of claim cited the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act. Which of the following is true if it were proven that the shoes were inappropriate and the cause of the injury?
◦ Gregory's father would be the proper plaintiff in this action and could win on the claim that the goods were not fit for purpose.
◦ This is not a sale of goods situation because Gregory's father paid by cash.
◦ Only Gregory can sue since he was the only one hurt.
◦ This is a "buyer beware" situation and there would be no remedy for anyone.
◦ Gregory's father could win for breach of contract because he made known the purpose for which he wanted the shoes to a shoe dealer.
Photographer unknown, Man with Big Shoes.
question asked
question asked
Sports drinks can replace electrolytes and fluids lost during exercise
A group of children were asked how many hours a day they spend watching television.
Francis Morocco shoes