Why was the plaintiff unsuccessful in the case of: Southern Cross Homes (Broken Hill) Inc v Chapman (1999) SASC 491?
A) The goods were not fit for the purpose but were made to the consumer's specifications.
B) The goods were made to the consumer's specifications.
C) The goods were fit for the purpose but not made to the consumer's specifications.
D) The goods were not fit for the purpose specified.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q12: In relation to the consumer guarantee of
Q13: For the Australian Consumer Law to apply,there
Q14: Which of the following services are NOT
Q15: In relation to the consumer guarantee of
Q16: Which of the following is NOT a
Q18: The Australian Consumer Law applies to all
Q19: When will a purchaser of goods NOT
Q20: Which of the following signs is unlawful
Q21: To which of the following services do
Q22: In the context of a sale by
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents