[zuzie181]

Izzati ordered a rice cooker from Syarikat Berjaya, telling the salesman that it would be used for catering dinner in her restaurant. She also told the salesman that the rice cooker must be white in colour. When it was delivered to her restaurant, Izzati found that the rice cooker was not of the size that she wanted. Instead, it was a medium size cooker capable of cooking rice for no more than 20 persons. The cooker was green in colour. Izzati wished to return the cooker on the ground that Syarikat Berjaya has breached the terms of the contract. The seller claimed that Izzati was at fault because she did not tell them the size of rice cooker she required and that the colour of the cooker was not a term of the contract. Advise Izzati. Refer to cases and sections.

Please help me to answer this...

[Fr_Chuck]

What part of the contract was in writing, was there a written order that was signed ?

[AK lawyer]

This looks like homework. We don't do homework.

[kapilatnt]

Does Berjaya breach a condition or a warrantee? In this case Izzati has express the conditions when enter to the contract with Berjaya, she wants a cooker to cook for her resturent. By this she implied the condition that it should be large in size. Colour difference will not be a condition because it's not directly connect with the main object of the contract, that is the cooker. For that she can claim damages, but she cannot get the contract as void.
In the case of Wallis V Part, Mooltan J stated, violation of such conditions is treated as a violated of contract itself.
So Izzati can succed in this case against Berjaya.

[Fr_Chuck]

Let me see we tell one person we don't do homework and someone else, comes and post homework as a answer to another homework question.

I am leaving it and closing it