Law on sale of goods in UK
The law on sale of goods in the United Kingdom is contained mainly in the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This is based on the Sale of Goods Act 1893 which codified the law on this subject and, to a large extent, removed differences flanked by English as well as Scottish law. The law on the passing of property under a contract for the sale of goods is now the same throughout the United Kingdom.  (Atiyah, 2005)
The Sale of Goods law 1979 is an Act of the Parliament of the Great Britain which legalizes deals in which products plus services are sold and bought. The law consolidates the previous selling of products Act 1893 as well as subsequent legislation, which in turn had encoded as well as consolidated the Act. As of 1979, there have been various little statutory changes as well as modifications to the 1979 law, as well as a new consolidated Sale of Goods Act is might be overdue. (Atiyah, 2005)
The Sale of Goods Act covers several consumer rights. The law sits in a small number of significant legal terms; however, these boundaries are little: the majority of the law is focusing by an array of presumptions as well as implied terms, which focuses to highlight the commercial needs in the most commonly agreed sales deeds. In the absence of contrary agreement these terms will lead a bond inside the Act's remit. The benefits in surety by inferior bargaining costs at the same time legal reliability had led to a number of jurisdictions adopting the legislation wholesale, plus versions of the Sale of Goods Act have been adopted in almost all the former territories of the British Rule as well as Commonwealth by the notable exception of Canada, which has adopted hybrid legislation incorporating elements of the US Uniform selling Code. (Atiyah, 2005)
The Act applies to contracts where property in 'goods' is transferred or agreed to be transferred for a monetary consideration, in other words: where property* in personal chattels is sold. (* Note that in this context, the word "property" means "ownership").
The case of Jenny clear shows the negligence plus the attitude of Remi is in addition not so encouraging as he feels that he has done his part by putting a notice. Here Jenny would be advised that notice like these does not deprive her as of her claiming rights. As anyone can put any notice however that does not set him/her free as of following the law in addition to making sure that the premises is safe as well as all the health and safety acts are followed in order to avoid accidents like the one faced by jenny resulting in serious injuries plus that she had to spent two days in hospital in addition to two weeks off work in order to recover as of her injuries. In addition to that she in addition lost her watch which was unfortunately beyond repair. Therefore, Jenny would be advised to go for the claim against Remi and claim compensation for the injuries as well as losses that she faced because of this accident. As according to Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Remi has failed to fulfil the legal requirements and has not compensated Jenny despite such a serious accident. (Bridge, 1998)
We come across situations like these very often where a customer is facing depression or difficulties when he or she feels that wrong product has been sold to him. It is the situation like these where one can thanks to the Law is selling goods. This law enables the buyer to feel confident plus purchase goods and or render services by means of confidence. (Atiyah, 2005)
The case of Tania is unique as she was informed by Remi at time of purchasing the product as well as she insisted to go for the product in addition to bought it for a price which was wrong plus the product was in addition not the one which she thought it might be. However despite Remi informed her regarding the authentication she bought the product and later on she realized that this was not the right product. The Law definitely will support Tania and she is advised to proceed by means of the claim. Remi however will be advised to refund or replace the product for Tania as if she proceeds by means of the claim Remi might not only have to pay the full refund however in addition might have to pay fine implied by the legal authorities along by means of legal charges. Tania has threatened to sue Remi claiming that she relied on the skill of the shop in selecting its merchandise plus will sue unless she receives a full refund. Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). If the goods you bought are unsafe, they are not of satisfactory quality. You might have the right to return them and to have your money refunded, the item replaced or repaired, or to be paid compensation. This depends on the agreement as well as the nature of the goods (Poole v Smith’s Car Sales (Balham) Ltd  1 WLR 744; Sealy and Hooley, pp.314–15) (Bridge, 1998)
Often contracts for sale or return do not address the issues of how the ‘buyer’ is to signify rejection of the goods, or what is the responsibility of the ‘buyer’ once the goods have been rejected. (Bridge, 1998)
Subject to any agreement to the contrary, rejection can be notified in any form. Such notice is only effective if given before property has passed, that is, before acceptance after acceptance the buyer will have the normal remedies that any buyer under a sale contract would have if the goods are defective. Subject to any agreement to the contrary, if the ‘buyer’ wishes to reject the goods, a notice of rejection will be sufficient devoid of return of the goods. The ‘buyer’ must make the goods available to the ‘seller’ inside a reasonable period of time after rejection. Goods of that description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller by means of the assent of the buyer or by the buyer by means of the assent of the seller (assent might be given before or after the appropriation). (Bridge, 1998)
The chief difficulty lies in the means by which goods are unconditionally appropriated.
Appropriation requires (Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd  1 Lloyd’s Rep 240). There are some troublesome cases. In Aldridge v Johnson  7 E & B 885, there was appropriation before delivery when the seller placed the goods in containers supplied by the buyer, even though the seller might have unpacked the goods in addition to replaced them by means of other goods. Carlos Federspiel & Co SA v Charles Twigg & Co Ltd  1 Lloyd’s Rep 240, is more rigorous. There was no appropriation even though the seller packed the bicycles in crates marked by means of the buyer’s name. The only substantial distinction flanked by this case plus Aldridge is that in the latter the containers were supplied by the buyer, however that would not seem to go to the core of the matter, which should be that there is no appropriation until it is beyond the power of the seller to substitute goods. The SGRs introduced a new heading in the SGA headed “Additional rights of the buyer in Consumer Cases."
If the buyer is a consumer as well as the goods does not conform to the contract of sale at the time of delivery then the buyer has the right to a number of possible remedies. These include:
(i) The right to repair;
(ii) The right to replacement;
(iii) Reduction in price; or
(iv) Rescission of the contract
Repair or replacement (s.48B) However here the product was not delivered and Tania bought it and despite Remi informed her regarding his concerns she still insisted and afterwards realized that the product was defected. As mentioned earlier Tania still can go for the claim while Remi is advised to either refund the amount, or replace the product in order to resolve this issue as well as avoid legal proceedings against him.
By s.23, the buyer, who buys in good faith plus devoid of notice of any defect in the title of the seller, will acquire good title if the goods are bought as of a seller whose title is voidable however, at the time of the sale, it has not been avoided (Cundy v Lindsay  3 App Cas 459; Sealy and Hooley, pp.328–29). There are several illustrations of a voidable contract familiar to students of the law of contract. (Bridge, 1998)
To take one example, in Kings Norton Metal Co Ltd v Edridge, Merrett & Co Ltd  14 TLR 98, a manufacturer of metal received an order as of ‘Hallam & Co’ and in consequence sent goods. It turned out that ‘Hallam & Co’ did not exist. The rogue resold the goods. It was held that the intention had been to contract by means of the writer of the order, and, although this intention had been induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation, that only made the contract voidable. Since it had not been avoided before the goods were resold to a third party, title passed to the latter.
The first issue is whether property has passed as of A (the original seller) to B (the rogue, who later sells the goods to C, the innocent buyer). If it has not s.23 will not operate. (McKendrick, 2000)
Luckily the law in the UK is very strict as well as it is made sure that nobody is victim of any kind of unfairness in sale agreements. This case of Remi is again a unique one however as the law says that price of the product should be the same at the time of transaction as it was display either on shelves or any other medium. Remi might be lucky as he did conversation by means of the Ear Ltd via email which means they did confirmed the original price plus when Remi agreed, he was informed that the price has changed. Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods, however the goods perished before the contract devoid of the knowledge of the seller, the contract is void (s.6). Section 6 might apply even if only part of the goods has perished (Barrow, Lane & Ballard Ltd v Phillip Phillips & Co  1 KB 574; Sealy and Hooley, p.285). Under the contract one party (the seller or the buyer) might have agreed to take the risk that the goods do not exist at the time of the contract; in which case that party will be liable should the risk arise. (McKendrick, 2000)
Section 6 might seem to resemble the doctrine of common mistake in the general law of contract, however goods that have never existed cannot be said to have perished (as to whethers.6 reproduces the decision in Courturier v Hastie  5 HL Cas 673, see Sealy and Hooley, p.283–84). (McKendrick, 2000)
The goods will have perished where they exist however have lost their commercial character: for example, dates perished where underwater for 2 days in addition to impregnated by means of sewage (Asfar v Blundell  1 QB 123. The problem by means of this case is that it was not a decision under the Sale of Goods Act as well as there is a contrary – if rather dubious authority, Horn v Minister of Food  2 All ER 1036).
Under s.7, where there is an agreement to sell specific goods in addition to, devoid of any fault on the part of either party, the goods perish subsequent to the agreement as well as before the risk has passed to the buyer, the agreement is avoided. Note that this section does not apply where there is a contract of sale. (McKendrick, 2000)