Please add more information in my answer:Application:In this question, Zack has fulfilled the condition of section 16(1)(a) by informing the seller at CSC that he needed a multifunction printer for his office to scan and print documents. In contrast to Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd case, where the seller was not informed about the plaintiff's skin condition. Furthermore, Zack met the second condition when he bought a printer from the 'Kopitiru' brand, which was recommended by CSC as the hot selling printer. In the case of Manchester Liners Ltd v. Rea Ltd, the fact that Zack informed the seller of his intention to purchase printers proves that he sought the seller's recommendation. Furthermore, it is similar to the case of Cammell Laird & Co. v Manganese Bronze &Brass Co. Ltd, where he relied on the seller's skill and judgement to determine which printers would be appropriate for his office to scan and print a large number of documents. Thus, Zack managed to meet the third condition by going to Copycat Supplier Co (CSC) an electric goods and asking the seller for a suitable printer, demonstrating that the goods supplied are of the description which the seller's business to supply. This is similar to the case of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd which the feed for mink is included in the category of animal feed as of in the business description to supply. Lastly, Zack fulfilled the fourth condition by not purchasing the printer under a patent or trade name. Zack relied on the seller's skills and knowledge in selecting the multi-function printer he desired. However, the seller recommended a 'Kopitiru' brand printer, which could not be used for scanning. It is similar with the case of Baldry v Marshall, whereby the dealer was held liable because the buyer relied on the dealer's recommendation to purchase a Bugatti car for touring.

QUESTION Zack wanted to buy a high-density multi-function printer for his office which can be used not only for printing but also for photocopying, scanning, and faxing. He went to Copycat Supplier Co (CSC) to look for a printer as he usually buys electric goods for his office from CSC. He told the seller at CSC that he needs a multi-function printer as his office work requires a lot of scanning and printing of documents. The seller recommended the printer from 'Kopitiru' brand as the printer is a hot selling item. Zack trusted the recommendation from CSC and bought 3 units of the Kopitiru printer. However, after buying the printers, Zack discovered that the printers could not be used for scanning. Zack wants to reject the printers because he could not use the printers for his work as what he required. But CSC refused to allow him to return the printers as the printers were not faulty and can still be used. Advise Zack based on the Sale of Goods Act 1957 and relevant cases