A thirsty young lady eagerly opens a bottle of soft drink and as she pours the fizzy carbonated liquid inside a glass cup, she observes some unusual dirt dancing inside the cup. A closer observation reveals that the remaining content in the bottle contained a small half of a decomposed rat.

A mother who has been trying to conceive a child for the last 10 years buys a medically prescribed medication from a duly authorised pharmacy or chemist and administers the drug in prescribed dosage to her baby. A few hours later the baby succumbs to diarrhoea which almost claims the life of her newborn baby.

A tenant rents an apartment during the heart of the dry season and the landlord represents that the environment is peaceful, and the property is fit for habitation. A few months later the rainy season comes with the raining leaking like the West African sieve used in sieving garri being prepared for the market. The tenant cannot sleep when it rains at night or can he go about his daily business without the palpable apprehension if the rain will come calling while he is away from the house.

The foregoing are all scenarios where the consumer of a defective product have been denied the legitimate utilitarian value of their product for which full value was paid.

Today, it is widely accepted that the consumer needs some protection because there is an imbalance in the power relations between the consumer, the distributor and the producer of the goods and services. This imbalance in power relations between a consumer of the producer of a product gives rise to liabilities in tort. But what are the legal rights of an innocent purchaser for value without notice of any defect?

1. FITNESS FOR PURPOSE:

The position of the law is clear that where a purchaser relies on the skills and expert judgement or opinion of a seller or professional, such seller or professional will held liable for any loss or damages incurred by the innocent purchaser for value without notice.

While it is your right to pay for goods bought and delivered as a purchaser, it is the seller's duty to ensure that the goods bought and or supplied are fit for purpose. The law is crystal clear that whereas it is the duty of the seller to ensure goods bought are fit for purpose, the purchaser has a corresponding duty to ensure that he explains the purpose of such purchase to the seller.
However, there is an exception. When a purchaser purchases goods from a reputable dealer or storekeeper, the law deems it that the purchaser impliedly relied on the seller's skill and judgement in making such purchase.

This principle of law was first tested in the case of Opia Ijoma v. MidMotors Nigeria Limited (Suit No. LD/1448/72) reported in 1975 wherein Dosumu J. (as he then was) held that is was not enough for the purchaser to simply allege that the goods bought and supplied was not fit for purpose, but that the purchaser must have satisfied the duty place on him by law to explain to the seller the exact purpose for the purchase.

In that case, the purchaser bought a bus from the seller, and his intention was to use the bus for commercial purposes. He did not explain his intention to the seller. He simply pointed at a bus, and the seller sold the bus for him. Each time the bus went on a trip, it required repairs before it could embark on another trip. He returned the bus to the seller, the seller refused to do anything about the bus or refund his money. He, therefore, sued the seller for selling a bad bus to him.

The court decided that the seller was not at fault and was not also not liable to return the purchase price as the purchaser this not explain to the seller the reasons he was buying the bus.

However, the reverse would have been the case, if the purchaser explained to the seller the reasons he was buying the bus and the seller knowingly sold the bus to him. Or, if the purchaser bought the bus from a certified seller who reasonable ought to know that such a vehicle could be used for commercial purposes.