O'Neil bought a new car from a Chevrolet dealer for family use. The contract he signed contained the following clause: "The parties hereto expressly agree that the dealer is not liable for any breach of condition or warranty, express or implied." He also bought a used car radio from the dealer for his old car, which he was keeping. The contract for the radio was not in writing. The car did not run properly; O'Neil had it back in the shop seven times in three weeks. It was finally determined that the problem was due to a faulty transmission. Unfortunately, the car radio didn't work either. On these facts, which of the following is true?
▸ The contract for the radio is not covered by the
Sale of Goods Act because the radio was not new.
▸ The exemption clause in the contract for the car would succeed in defeating an action by O'Neil against the dealer for breach of contract.
▸ O'Neil has an action for breach of contract against the dealer, because the exemption clause does not defeat the dealer's obligation to deliver a properly performing car (fit for use) in a consumer transaction.
▸ The contract for the radio is not covered by the
Sale of Goods Act because the contract was not in writing.
▸ The exemption clause does not apply to either because both involve fundamental breaches of contract.
Quick Reply
