Question 3 Kristo Ltd, a private limited liability company recently bought two used cars, each six months old, for two of its executives to drive. Kissi, the managing director of the company, first saw the two cars at Kormivi’s Garage, a Car Dealership about a month ago. Whilst at the Dealership, Kissi noticed that one of the cars, a Roadster, had an engine oil leak and the other, a Speedster, had water leak in the boot. Kissi did not, however, look in the boot of the Roadster. Kormivi’s Garage assured Kissi: “They are good little buses; you can rely on them”. After test driving both cars, Kissi, on behalf of Kristo Ltd, signed two contracts of purchase, one relating to each of the two cars. Kissi left the Roadster with Kormivi to have the oil leak repaired and drove away in the Speedster. Two weeks later, Kissi returned the Speedster for its boot leak to be repaired and collected the Roadster. The next day, Kissi discovered that the Roadster had a water leak in its boot; secondly, that the engine oil leak had not been repaired and was irreparable (meaning a new engine was necessary); and, thirdly, that soon after delivery to its first buyer the Speedster had been involved in an accident and subsequently treated by its owner’s insurance company as a write off. Upon learning these facts, Kissi informed Kormivi’s Garage that he was rejecting the cars and demanded the return of the purchase priceto Consultants Ltd. You are to advise the parties on the following: a) Whether or not Kormivi’s Garage is in breach of its obligations under the Sale of Goods Act, 1962 (Act 137)? b) Whether or not under Act 137, Kristo Ltd can reject the cars after having taken delivery of them