Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
By : Farhah & Co
3. MANUFACTURER (SAMSUNG)
Claimed that the incident should not have happened although the phone was
still within the warranty period, unless the battery has been tempered with.
CAUSE OF ACTION
Ah Mei bought the phone from Seng Chow Telecommunication Sdn. Bhd.
The seller convinced her that he had received the phone in a very good
condition and was still within the warranty period. However without Ah Meis
knowledge, the seller had replaced the battery with a non-original one which
had suddenly exploded and caused severe injury on her right hand when she
was charging the phone for the first time.
LEGAL ISSUES
Whether the seller was negligence in selling defective product.
Whether the seller owed the duty of care towards Ah Mei.
Whether the seller had breach the duty of care to ensure the product
was in good condition and safe for Ah Mei to use.
Whether the injury suffered by Ah Mei was reasonably foresee by the
seller.
Whether the act of the seller not telling he changed the battery
amounted to fraud.
PREDICTION OF OUTCOME BASED ON SUNDRAM VEERIAH V MAGNEFICIENT
DIAGRAPH SDN. BHD.