Consumer Sales Flashcards
Lee v. Griffin (1861)
Facts – contract to make a pair of false teeth,
Held – test was to say that If purpose of transaction was to produce a new thing and supply that is a SOG
Young & Marten v. McManus Childs, Ltd. [1969] (HL)
Facts – contract to roof a building, required the roofing company to use tiles of certain type, they roofed building using specified type, unfortunately they used defective batch¸ had to remove and replace, who had to bare cost
Held – duty to supply particular type impliedly meant had to be good tiles, so SOG Act s14(1)/ (3 now) applies
Jones v Callagher [2004]
Facts – C installed J kitchen, J appealed against decision that although C breached by installing wrong colour units, since J had accepted he could not reject it, J argued had not accepted it
Held – had used cupboards etc. and the wrong colour would have been obvious immediately, sufficient time had elapsed
s1(4) Consumer Rights Act 2015
(4)In each case the Chapter applies even if the contract also covers something covered by another Chapter (a mixed contract).
St Albans City and DC v. International Computers Ltd. [1996]
Facts – supplied faulty computer software
Held – software itself is not goods, needs to be on physical item
Hazelwood Grocery Ltd v Lion Foods Ltd [2007]
Facts – C was foodstuffs manufacturer, purchased a quantity of chilli powder from D, express term was ‘the powder supplied was free from foreign and extraneous matter,’ contained a quantity of industrial dye which was semi toxic, all foodstuffs was recalled
Held – was a breach of implied condition of satisfactory quality s14(2), breach implied condition of must reasonably fit for purpose s14(3), breach of express term of not containing extraneous material, can reject and claim damages
The Hansa Nord [1976]
Facts – shipping case, (SoG law in UK), seller of citrus pellets in Florida, selling to a company in Germany, used English contract law, express term in contract that goods would be in good condition, it not one of the statutory terms (different from s14(2) &(3)), pellets deteriorated, 40% had lost quality, buyers rejected the goods but sent agent to buy them again for lesser price
Held – ‘in good condition’ was an express term of contract, was an intermediate term, received substantial benefit of contract, buyers were wrong to reject goods, was breach contract
Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kaisen Kaisha [1962]
Held – 3rd type of term, intermediate terms, test did breaching party receive substantial benefit of contract, if yes can sue for damages, if not can rescind (Diplock LJ)
Daniels v Tabard and R White [1938]
Facts – manufacturers of lemonade, bought lemonade, drank it, contained something toxic In it, got ill
Held – seller was liable although when was supplied sealed to seller was sealed, (now seller could enter indemnity agreement for manufacturer), liability is strict according to SOGA, liability without fault
STRICT LIABILITY
Liability without fault – according to SoG law the seller is strictly liable for faults in the goods (even when manufacturers fault)
EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY IN SALE OF GOODS
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 s6 –>in commercial contracts parties are free to exclude implied conditions – subject to test of reasonable
Consumer Rights Act 2015 s 31-34 –> cannot exclude liability of trader to consumer, exclusion clauses will be non-binding s31(consumer can decide for it to binding), unenforceable (also based on fairness part 2) (stores can’t say no refunds)
s12 Sale of Goods Act 1979
Duty to pass on a good title
is of most significance in relation to sales by non-owners, and is therefore useful to know in ‘nemo dat quod non habet’ cases
s13 Sale of Goods Act 1979
Sale by description.
(1)Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied [F12term] that the goods will correspond with the description.
(1A)As regards England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition.]
(2) If the sale is by sample as well as by description it is not sufficient that the bulk of the goods corresponds with the sample if the goods do not also correspond with the description.
(3) A sale of goods is not prevented from being a sale by description by reason only that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer.
S13 CRA Notes
Not prevented by being a sale by description if goods are selected by buyer) (opposite of sale by description is normal specific goods although not always) –
no defences to s13, no qualification like s14(2 & 3)
doesn’t have to be in course of business, so if seller is private individual e.g. EBay, s13 still applies
if seller is not a trader the buyer cannot be a consumer – so if buy from a private individual the consumer rights act (s11) won’t apply, will have to use s13
s13 doesn’t just apply to private sales also applies to business sales
Most of commercial law is sale by description, buying commodity/ concept e.g. buying grain
Sale by description also includes buying by brand name e.g. buying a coke and they give you a Pepsi that’s a breach of s13
Relates to nature or Identity of Goods rather than just Quality
Can have breach of s13 even if good are perfect quality
Re Moore and Landauer [1921]
Facts – selling fruit in wrong packaging, fruit was still fit for purpose
Held – even though in perfect condition, was still breach of s13
Arcos v Ronaasen and Son [1933]
Facts – timber being sold to make barrels, timber was wrong thickness, made no difference to value, still fit for purpose
Held – had to be exactly that size or breach of s13 (law used to be taken very rigorously), can reject
s15A Sale of Goods Act 1979
Modification of remedies for breach of condition in non-consumer cases.
(1) Where in the case of a contract of sale—
(a) the buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 13, 14 or 15 above, but
(b) the breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them, the breach is not to be treated as a breach of condition but may be treated as a breach of warranty.
(2) This section applies unless a contrary intention appears in, or is to be implied from, the contract.
Wren v Holt [1903]
Facts – went into pub and ordered pint from Holdens brewery, when drank felt ill, contained arsenic, issue was , is this of satisfactory quality
Held – was not of merchantable quality, rule only applied in original SoGA if sale by description, this was held to be sale by description, beer was unfit quality but also didn’t match description so breach s13 and s14
Varley v. Whipp [1900]
Facts – second hand piece of agricultural machinery being sold, buyer hadn’t seen it, was being sold as new the previous year, only used to cut 50 or 60 acres, buyers relied on words by farmer as describing what he was buying, machine wasn’t new the previous year, was it a sale description as buying particular good?
Held – was a sale by description even though was a specific good as relied on description, so was breach of description s13,
Beale v. Taylor [1967]
Facts – sale of second hand car, seller described car in certain way including brand, when buyer got car, found was two different cars welded together, private sale so only s13 applies not 14(2)
Held – only half of car corresponded with description, description was term of contract, brand of car was term, brands are covered by s13, must be term of contract
Drake v. Thos. Agnew & Sons Ltd. [2002]
Facts – fine art sales, bought painting said to be by Van Dyke, was by someone else
Held – was this part of description, was the artist a term in the contract, Artist was a statement of opinion not a term, so no breach of s13, so couldn’t get money back
Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd. [1991]
Facts – case of fine art, Artist Munter, painting was forgery, parties were both art dealers (not like Drake v Agneu – Seller admitted wasn’t expert, Buyer was expert – less likely to be term)
Held – was statement that was work of Art and painted by Munter a term, even if was a term, (CoA) still had to prove relied on the statement for s13, if not can’t reject goods on breach of implied condition (controversial because reliance is a misrep rule was dissent Smith LJ) – as buyer was expert and seller wasn’t promising so no reliance
Reardon Smith Line v. Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976]
Facts – ship being built in Japan, contract between shipyard and shipping company, ship price went down, buyers wanted out, claimed that when ship was built in a different shipyard and had different number, claimed it wasn’t the ship they ordered, was same in every other way
Held – can’t pretend it’s a different ship, it was the ship they ordered, identity of ship was same as contract, can’t be over technical
Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries [1972]
Facts – farmer in Northumberland, breading mink for coats, was using Norwegian animal feed, was a compound of specific foods, was being manufactured by 3rd party, seller was selling to buyer, compound contained toxic agent, want poisonous per se just to the mink, they all died
Held – was there a breach of all 3 sections, was a breach of s14(2 &3) because not of merchantable quality or fit for purpose, wasn’t a breach of s13 because specific food was supplied , correct good was supplied, identity was correct, was just not fit for purpose so s14 not s13
