High-speed International

Introduction

High Speed International rejected the goods delivered by Global Motors Inc. on the grounds of disappointing performance on the contract by Global motors Inc and further terminated the contract

Global Motor Inc. contended that Highspeed International had no right to reject the goods and terminate the contract

Arguments for the Revoking the Contract

Sale of Goods Act provides that where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description(Embley, Bamford, & Hancock, 2017).

The cars delivered were not fit for the intended purpose

The braking system of the ten cars delivered by Motor Global Inc needed adjustment

Motors Global Inc. further failed to comply with the international industry emission standard of BMG20

From the perspective of Highspeed International, BMG20 standard qualified as an explicit description of the goods

Rebuts For the Rejection of the Goods and Termination of the Contract

With regards to the Contractual agreement between Highspeed International and Motor Global Inc.:

1.Both parties agreed to a pre-shipment inspection of the braking system

2.Certificate issued by the inspection company in respect of the braking system was to be ‘final and binding on the contracting parties.’ (High-speed International Ltd v Motor Global Inc, [2017]).

Continued

Motors Global Inc. cannot be held in contempt of dishonoring the contract given that the pre shipment inspection by Check and Go Ltd showed that there were no defects with the braking system and the certificate issued(High-speed International Ltd v Motor Global Inc, [2017]). For those needing assistance, seeking law dissertation help can provide valuable insights into similar legal matters.

The description included:

1 ‘Second-hand Lexus RX 450h;

2 Year of manufacture: 2014;

3 Colour: Black or Navy (Dark) Blue’.

High Speed International did not explicitly describe the preferred emission standard as the BMG20

In their part, Motor global Inc did not fully fail to comply with the emission standards but rather choose to implement the most recent ones C5 and GMQ92

The contractual agreement was quite open on which emission standard to be implemented therefore Motor Global Inc. cannot be held in contempt for implementing the most updated emission standard.