A repair of the taps, replacement of the discolored bath and delivery of the shower cabinet may be accepted as a remedy. However, if this remedy is not satisfactory, consequent to faulty repair or the failure to deliver the shower cabinet, as per the contractually described one, Mr. Green may still claim a refund. Furthermore, considering that the fault was detected immediately upon delivery and installation, another remedy available to Mr. Green is the request for a reduction in price to compensate for the fault and the non delivery of the shower cabinet. In other words, the available remedies are refund, repair, reduction in price or rescission.
Assuming that it is not clear in the question you are given whether it is a Hire Purchase Agreement governed by Debtor-Creditor-Supplier terms, you need to be able to identify it. Use the following as a guide:
Mr. Greene purchased the Carlton Suite and this should factor into his decision whether or not to pursue the remedy of terminating the contract. In order to clarify how this particular remedy will be financially costly to the debtor, it is first necessary to point out a number of facts associated with this type of credit agreement. In the first place, as per the credit agreement, Mr. Brown does not legally own the goods and shall not be in ownership of them until he has paid the full sum owed. His contract here is with the finance company and not with Breakspears Bathrooms. In other words, and as per Consumer Credit Act, S.11(1)(a), the bathroom was sold to the financial company by Breakspears and not to Mr. Green. In this instance, Mr. Green took delivery of the suite from the financial company. As such, the bathroom suite is bailed to Mr. Green in return for periodic payments and ownership rights shall only pass to him upon his completion of all payments.
Should Mr. Green determine termination to be the remedy that he will pursue, the financial burden of doing so may fall upon him. His termination order will be governed by Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 99 and Section 100. This is further established by Yeoman Credit v Waragowski. In this matter, even though the court recognised the debtor’s right