SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False

Yes or No

Played 0

Create copy

About this activity

A fast quiz on the SGA and CRA terms basics.

Created by

yayamao 030

Malaysia

Download the paper version to play

Top 10 results

There are still no results for this game. Be the first to stay in the ranking! Log in to identify yourself.

Make your own free game from our game creator

Compete against your friends to see who gets the best score in this game

Make challenge

Grammys for best song/record

Educaplay Educational Resources

Spain

(50)

Answer if these songs won the Grammy for Best Song or Record of the Year (the general ones, category Grammys do not count)
Foot and Ankle Anatomy Quiz

Thilaxshi Suresh

United Kingdom

(9)

Test your knowledge of the bones, joints, and muscles of the foot and ankle with this interactive quiz. Answer with ✅ if the statement is correct and ❌ if it is incorrect.
Is it true?

Educaplay Educational Resources

Spain

(58)

Answer if the following sentences about general culture are true or not.
Adjective Checker

Erika Moreno

Ecuador

(14)

In this game, you will have to determine if the adjective provided accurately describes the noun. Test your knowledge of adjectives and see if you can spot the correct matches!
Is it created with Artificial Intelligence? - Complete game

Educaplay Educational Resources

Spain

(17)

Images, songs... Nothing is what it seems anymore. Are they generated with AI, or are they real?

		%
	Anonymous	%
		%
		%

Print your game

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False


SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/FalseOnline version A fast quiz on the SGA and CRA terms basics. by yayamao 030 1 Section 14(3) SGA 1979 provides that if a buyer makes a particular purpose known, the goods must be reasonably fit for that purpose. Yes No 2 The course of business requirement for s.14 operates only for dealers in the exact type of goods sold. Yes No 3 Steels & Busks Ltd v Bleecker Bik & Co Ltd determined that a bulk defect undetectable by reasonable examination always breaches s.15(2). Yes No 4 Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd established that high-end cars are always merchantable even with major ongoing defects. Yes No 5 In Heil v Hedges, it was held that pork chops need not be cooked thoroughly for them to be merchantable. Yes No 6 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills found that underwear with dermatitis is merchantable if the consumer can avoid washing before wear. Yes No 7 Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd established that if a buyer’s condition is idiosyncratic, the seller is always liable regardless of communication. Yes No 8 The term 'making known' for s.14(3) has no bearing on the level of foreseeability of the buyer's purpose. Yes No 9 Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd concluded that a rogue car submerged underwater still qualifies as merchantable quality due to price considerations. Yes No 10 Teheran-Europe Corpn v ST Belton Ltd held that a foreign buyer cannot rely on the seller's skill if the buyer is based in a foreign country. Yes No 11 The 'reasonable person' standard in s.14(2A) is purely subjective and only considers the buyer's personal expectations. Yes No 12 Grant v Australian Knitting Mills concluded that underwear with excessive sulphites renders the product merchantable if it can be washed out easily. Yes No 13 In Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze & Brass Co Ltd, there is no concept of reliance when determining fitness for a particular purpose. Yes No 14 The concept of latent defects is excluded from relief under the SGA; only apparent defects matter at contract time. Yes No 15 Section 12(1) and 12(2) create a separate standard unrelated to 'satisfactory quality' in SGA 1979. Yes No 16 Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd established that defects originating from downstream contracts are always ignored. Yes No 17 The term 'satisfactory quality' in s.14(2) SGA 1979 only applies to consumer transactions, not business-to-business contracts. Yes No 18 Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals held that a seller need not warn if the buyer is unaware of latent hazards in containers. Yes No 19 Geddling v Marsh ruled that packaging is never considered part of the goods for s.14(2) purposes. Yes No 20 Section 15(2) SGA 1979 states that the bulk of goods must exactly match the sample in every visible detail, regardless of detectability. Yes No

You can integrate the game into an LMS compatible with LTI 1.1 or LTI 1.3 such as Canvas, Moodle, or Blackboard. This way, the scores will be automatically saved into the platform’s gradebook.

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/False

Yes or No

About this activity

Created by

Download the paper version to play

Top Games

Yes or No

Grammys for best song/record

Yes or No

Foot and Ankle Anatomy Quiz

Yes or No

Is it true?

Yes or No

Adjective Checker

Yes or No

Is it created with Artificial Intelligence? - Complete game

SGA/CRA Terms: Quick True/FalseOnline version

by yayamao 030

Section 14(3) SGA 1979 provides that if a buyer makes a particular purpose known, the goods must be reasonably fit for that purpose.

The course of business requirement for s.14 operates only for dealers in the exact type of goods sold.

Steels & Busks Ltd v Bleecker Bik & Co Ltd determined that a bulk defect undetectable by reasonable examination always breaches s.15(2).

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd established that high-end cars are always merchantable even with major ongoing defects.

In Heil v Hedges, it was held that pork chops need not be cooked thoroughly for them to be merchantable.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills found that underwear with dermatitis is merchantable if the consumer can avoid washing before wear.

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd established that if a buyer’s condition is idiosyncratic, the seller is always liable regardless of communication.

The term 'making known' for s.14(3) has no bearing on the level of foreseeability of the buyer's purpose.

Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd concluded that a rogue car submerged underwater still qualifies as merchantable quality due to price considerations.

Teheran-Europe Corpn v ST Belton Ltd held that a foreign buyer cannot rely on the seller's skill if the buyer is based in a foreign country.

The 'reasonable person' standard in s.14(2A) is purely subjective and only considers the buyer's personal expectations.

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills concluded that underwear with excessive sulphites renders the product merchantable if it can be washed out easily.

In Cammell Laird & Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze & Brass Co Ltd, there is no concept of reliance when determining fitness for a particular purpose.

The concept of latent defects is excluded from relief under the SGA; only apparent defects matter at contract time.

Section 12(1) and 12(2) create a separate standard unrelated to 'satisfactory quality' in SGA 1979.

Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd established that defects originating from downstream contracts are always ignored.

The term 'satisfactory quality' in s.14(2) SGA 1979 only applies to consumer transactions, not business-to-business contracts.

Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals held that a seller need not warn if the buyer is unaware of latent hazards in containers.

Geddling v Marsh ruled that packaging is never considered part of the goods for s.14(2) purposes.

Section 15(2) SGA 1979 states that the bulk of goods must exactly match the sample in every visible detail, regardless of detectability.