The digital content. However, Ringo can choose to either

The claimant here is Ringo,
while the respondent is Lingua Bragadoccio (LB). The issue here is whether there is a breach of the
fit for particular purpose.1 The
rule is that the digital content must be reasonably fit for any particular
purpose that the buyer had expressly or impliedly made known to the seller.2

It is vital that the consumer
make the particular purpose known to the seller. This is seen in Griffiths v Conway3
where the buyer was not aware of his condition thus, he did not make it known
to the seller. Hence, there was no breach of the particular purpose. On the
facts, Ringo has made it clear to LB that he needed an application that would
help him specifically with Italian vocabulary on food and nature for his trip.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The test required is a ‘reasonable’
and not absolute fitness for purpose. This depends on the seriousness of the
problem, whether it is easily fixed, whether it is recurring and so on. It was
held in Parsons v Uttley Ingham4 that although the defects are small, it
can still fail the fitness for purpose test if the consequences are serious. It
can be submitted that there was a breach of a particular purpose by LB.

There is no short term right
to reject within 30 days as seen in goods contracts for digital content.
However, Ringo can choose to either demand repair or replacement.5 LB
must do so within a reasonable time, without significant inconvenience to the
consumer; 6
and bear any necessary costs incurred in doing so.7 Ringo
will not be able to demand repair or replace if it is impossible or
Ringo will have the right to price reduction if9:
(a) s.43(3)(a) applies, that is repair or replacement is impossible or
disproportionate, or (b) having
requested either remedy, this is not done in a reasonable time or without
significant inconvenience to Ringo. Ringo has not heard from LB which is inconvenient as he will be leaving
to Italy in a week.

S.44(1) confers the right to
require LB to reduce the price to Ringo by an appropriate amount, including the
right to receive a refund for anything already paid above the reduced amount.10
The ‘appropriate’ amount varies depending on the circumstances. It can amount
up to the full price.11 Any
refund has to be given without undue delay within 14 days12
and without additional charge.13 There
is no final right to reject for digital content. It can be submitted that Ringo
would get the price reduction.

1 ibid s 35

2 CRA 2015, S 35(1)

3 Griffiths v Conway 1939 1 All ER 685

4 Parsons v Uttley Ingham 1978 QB

5 CRA 2015, s 42(2)(a), s 43

6 ibid S 43(2)(a)

7 ibid S 43(b)

8 ibid s 43(3)(a), s 43(3)(b)

9 ibid s 44(3)

10 CRA 2015, s 49(1)

11 ibid s 44(2)

12 ibid s 44(4)

13 ibid s 44(6)