(a)

Issue:
The issue here refers to if Adam has any remedies in contract law under Sales of Goods Act.
Rule:
Under law of the Sales Goods Act, Adam is able to sue for damages if there is a breach of other
warranties or conditions under section 13 and 14 of the Act. Section 13 of the Act provides that
in the contract of goods by description, there is an implied term that will correspond with the
description. Section 14(2) of the Act states that when the seller is selling goods in the course of
business, goods supplied must be of satisfactory quality.
Application:
For section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act to be successfully invoked, it must be shown that Adam
must have relied on the description of the pills on the bottle. He relied on the advertisement made
by A1 that the pills were manufactured in Switzerland and made from pure natural products.
However, it turned out that the pills contained chemical substances that are harmful and made in
Nigeria instead of Switzerland. With regards to section 14 of the Act, the buyer has to consider
all relevant factors besides prices. This can include safety purposes where the pills sold should be
labeled with appropriate headings or instructions. Hence, Adam can bring an action against A1
for damages for the breach of warranty or the price that he has pay to the seller due to
unsatisfactory quality.
Conclusion:
Although Adam is likely to be able to sue A1 for damages, he has to be mindful that under the
Sales of Goods Act, once the buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods and keep it for a
reasonable period of time, he will lose his right to reject the goods and sue A1.
(b)
Issue
In order to determine if Samantha is able to sue Adam for the breach of contract, she has to be
aware of the situations that will entitle her to discharge the contract. She has to determine if there
is an agreement or contract between both of them.
Rule & Application
In this case, she can sue Adam if the contract clearly and unambiguously provides for the event
such that upon occurrence of such event she can terminate the contract. In addition, the presence
of any express term or implied term in the contract that could relate to not having reasonable care

will entitle her to discharge the contract. If the relevant term is a condition such that the breach
will deprive her of substantially the whole benefit of the contract then she is able to sue Adam.
On the other hand, Adam could defend himself by claiming that there is innocent
misrepresentation as he had reasonable ground to believe that the pills he bought were made
from Switzerland and made from pure natural products. Thus, he entered into a contract with
Samantha being unaware that the pills bought were from Nigeria and contained harmful
substances. In cases involving innocent misrepresentation, Samantha does not have the right to
damages but could claim an indemnity against Adam. Hence, she might not be able to sue Adam
for the breach of contract.
Conclusion
Samantha can sue Adam if there was a contract between them with terms that allow termination
in the event of a breach. However, if Adam were to prove that he had no intention to make a false
statement towards Samantha, he might not be liable for damages.
(c)
Issue
The issue here refers to the validity of exclusion clause which allows A1 to not be liable for any
breach of contract.
Rule
For an exclusion clause to be applied, the breach must fall within the ambit of clause as it is
worded. If the clause was on written standard terms, contra proferentum rule suggests that it
can be construed in a favour of the other party if there is any ambiguity. Also, if the breach
relates to negligence, clear words have to be used. In this case, the exclusion clause was written
in small prints which not might be obvious to their customers. Given the fact that Adam and
Samantha were surprised to find out from their lawyer that the bottle contained an exclusion
clause, this indicated that they were unaware which in turn reduces the validity of the clause.

Application
There are also several legal impediments to the validity of the exclusion clause. The legal effect
of the clause has been misrepresented and operation of legislation (Unfair Contract Terms Act
Cap 396) that will disallow A1 to rely on the exclusion clause.
The Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396) [UCTA] will affect the operation of the exclusion
clause. In Adams case, there is said to be misrepresentation as he purchased the pills based on
the fact that they are made from natural products but it turned out that they contained chemical

substances that are detrimental to ones health. Under UCTA, exemption clause can only be
relied if it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. Section 11 of the UCTA provides that the
requirement of reasonableness is such that the term is fair and reasonable and made known in the
contemplation of parties when the contract was made. Given that Adam was unaware of the
presence of such clause makes it difficult to satisfy such requirement. A1 will find it difficult to
protect themselves against Adams claim.
As for Samantha, A1 is said to be liable for negligence in the course of business. Samantha was
diagnosed with kidney failure due to the presence of toxic artificial chemical substance in the
pills. Section 2 of the Act (UCTA) provides that the person cannot exclude or restrict liability for
death or personal injury resulting from negligence. This will thus cause the exclusion clause to
be invalid and A1 will be liable for damages. Samantha also lost her job as a model due to
hospitalization for two weeks. Similar to Adams case, exemption clause can only be relied if it
satisfies the requirement of reasonableness. Being unaware of such clause will cause A1 to be
unable to protect themselves against claims.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, it is difficult for A1 to not be held liable for negligence despite the presence of an
exclusion clause.
(d)
Issue
Samantha has to determine how she can succeed in suing A1 under the law of Tort.
Rule
In order for Samantha to succeed in claiming against A1 for negligence under the law of Tort,
she has to establish the presence of three elements. These include the presence of duty of care
owned by A1 to Samantha, the breach of that duty by A1 and lastly the resulting damage suffered
by Samantha.
Application:
Under duty of care, firstly, one has to establish that there was factual foreseeability of damage
resulting from the negligent act. It was reasonably foreseeable from a factual perspective that
failure to take reasonable care by A1 will cause injury or damage to their customers. The pills
contain chemical substances that are harmful and will cause damage to their customers health.
Secondly, there is a need to show that there is sufficient relationship of proximity between A1
and Samantha to indicate that A1 indeed owe Samantha a duty of care. There is presence of
casual proximity as A1 gave negligent advice knowing that their customer will follow their
advice and thus suffer damage. Samantha followed the instructions on the bottle of the pills and

resulted in severe pain and kidney problems. Thirdly, there should not be any policy
considerations that will negate the existence of duty of care.
Next, Samantha has to show that A1 has breached their duty of care. A reasonable man test can
be carried out. This test will indicate if A1 has done what a reasonable man will not do and not
done what a reasonable man would have done. Moreover, Samantha is able to make use of the
doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. She will only be required to show that the loss or damage suffered
from the incident was due to negligence. She has to show that the injury or damage was under
the control of A1 and it will not happen in the ordinary course of things if proper care was used.
If A1 had conducted proper checks on the manufacturing of the pills and not conceal the fact that
the pills were made in Nigeria and contained unnatural products, this would have reduced the
damage and not cause her to have kidney problems. Thus, there is indeed a breach of duty.
Lastly, to establish if A1 is liable for the Tort of Negligence, Samantha must indicate that she had
indeed suffered from some resulting damage. Firstly, the damage must have been caused by the
breach of duty (causation) and secondly, the damage suffered must not be too remote
(remoteness). The principle of causation indicates that A1 should only be liable for damage to
Samantha as a result of breach of duty of care. This is valid as Samantha did suffer from severe
pain and was hospitalized from consuming the pills. Remoteness of damage is the extent to
which A1 should be liable for consequences of the breach of duty. The egg shell skull rule can
be used. It is applied to scenarios where due to the claimants innate physical susceptibility to
illness or injury she suffered from extreme damage is triggered by initially foreseeable damage
caused by A1s negligence. Although A1 was unaware if Samantha had any pre-existing
conditions, consumption of uncertified chemical substances will be harmful to the body and
cause damage. Hence, the damage is proven not to be too remote.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Samantha has to establish all three elements in order to succeed in establishing
that A1 is liable for Tort of Negligence and claim against A1.

References
1. Jordan, R. and Warren, W. (1997). Commercial law. Westbury, N.Y.: Foundation Press.
2. Ravindran, M. (2010). LexisNexis annotated statutes of Singapore. Singapore: LexisNexis.
3. Phang, A. (2012). The law of contract in Singapore. Singapore: Academy Pub.
4. Kumar, H. and Kaan, (2006). The Law of Torts. Singapore: Singapore Academy of Law.
5. Lawson, R. (2011). Exclusion clauses and unfair contract terms. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
6. Ribeiro, R. (2002). Damages and other remedies for breach of commercial contracts. London:
Thorogood.