Skip to main content
gifts are covered under ACL
Source Link
jimsug
  • 12.3k
  • 6
  • 45
  • 82

It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); prima facie, gifts would beare covered although, though I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded.

It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); prima facie, gifts would be covered although I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded.

It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); gifts are covered, though I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded.

Expanded Australian section with additional information
Source Link
Dale M
  • 226.6k
  • 17
  • 262
  • 519

It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); prima facie, gifts would be covered although I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded.

In addition, the mere existence of this statement, purporting to limit or remove guarantees that cannot be limited or excluded, puts the supplier in breach of s29 as they are making a "false or misleading statement in connection with the supply, possible supply or promotion of goods or services". This is a criminal or civil offence and can be punished by fines of up to $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for a person other than a body corporate plus injunctions, damages, compensatory orders and other remedies. However, a simple "To the extent permitted by law ..." at the start would make this legal.

It is important to note that these do not depend on the existence of a contract (see 54(1)); prima facie, gifts would be covered although I am unaware of any case law on this. In addition, title (s51) and non-infringement ("undisturbed possession") (s52) must be guaranteed by the supplier and cannot be excluded.

In addition, the mere existence of this statement, purporting to limit or remove guarantees that cannot be limited or excluded, puts the supplier in breach of s29 as they are making a "false or misleading statement in connection with the supply, possible supply or promotion of goods or services". This is a criminal or civil offence and can be punished by fines of up to $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for a person other than a body corporate plus injunctions, damages, compensatory orders and other remedies. However, a simple "To the extent permitted by law ..." at the start would make this legal.

finished writing my answer and added definition to body of answer
Source Link
jimsug
  • 12.3k
  • 6
  • 45
  • 82

UCC §2-106 defines a sale as passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.

States may have additional laws that may affect the interpretation of the UCC. For example, Ark.Code Ann. § 4–1–201(32):

So, does it have an effect? Sometimes. But not always. And at least in the United States, there are specific requirements if you want to exclude implied/statutory warranty.

States may have additional laws that may affect the interpretation of the UCC. For example, Ark.Code Ann. § 4–1–201(32):

So, does it have an effect? Sometimes. But not always. And at least in the United States

UCC §2-106 defines a sale as passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price.

States may have additional laws that may affect the interpretation of the UCC. For example, Ark.Code Ann. § 4–1–201(32):

So, does it have an effect? Sometimes. But not always. And at least in the United States, there are specific requirements if you want to exclude implied/statutory warranty.

added some case law
Source Link
jimsug
  • 12.3k
  • 6
  • 45
  • 82
Loading
Source Link
jimsug
  • 12.3k
  • 6
  • 45
  • 82
Loading