Multiple Choice
Why was the plaintiff unsuccessful in the case of: Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc v Chapman (1999) SASC 491?
A) The goods were not fit for the purpose but were made to the consumer's specifications.
B) The goods were made to the consumer's specifications.
C) The goods were fit for the purpose but not made to the consumer's specifications.
D) The goods were not fit for the purpose specified.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q15: The guarantee of fitness for purpose applies
Q16: If the supplier of goods fails to
Q17: Which of the following factors have to
Q18: Which of the following will NOT protect
Q19: Section 64 of the Australian Consumer Law
Q21: Unless it can be otherwise inferred from
Q22: In relation to the consumer guarantee of
Q23: The test of acceptable quality of goods
Q24: Which of the following signs is unlawful
Q25: When will a purchaser of goods NOT