Case Study: Sarah$$s Coffee Machine

In the bustling city of Toronto, Sarah, a consumer, purchased a high$-$end coffee machine from Java Electronics, a renowned electronics store. The machine was for personal use and not for resale. According to the Sale of Goods Act, the title and risk associated with the goods were transferred to Sarah upon purchase.

Two weeks later, Sarah discovered that the coffee machine was defective. It would turn off automatically after being on for just five minutes. She returned to Java Electronics seeking a remedy for the breach of condition. Under Canadian Business Law, such a breach permits rescission.

Java Electronics offered Sarah two options: a full refund or an exchange for another unit of the same model. This is in line with practical remedies available under the Sale of Goods Act to buyers who experience breaches of conditions.

However, had this been merely a breach of warranty $-$ say if there was only minor discoloration on part of the machine $-$ Sarah would have only been entitled to damages or compensation but not rescission.

Since consumers like Sarah who buy goods for personal use are extended more legislative protection than businesses under Consumer Protection Law in Canada; she opted for an exchange which was processed immediately without bureaucratic hurdles.

Questions:

$1.$ What rights did Sarah have under Consumer Protection Law when she discovered her coffee machine was defective?

$2.$ If there had been only minor discoloration on part of the machine $($breach of warranty$),$ what would have been Sarah$$s entitlement?

$3.$ How does risk and title transfer according to Sale of Goods Act?

$4.$ Are consumers buying goods for personal use extended more legislative protection than businesses? Provide an example from case study.