Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

18BSA026 - Principles of Law > L4 - Contract Law - Statutory Implied Terms > Flashcards

L4 - Contract Law - Statutory Implied Terms Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What are the three general categories of implied terms?

A
  • Terms implied by statute
  • Terms implied by custom and usage
  • Terms implied by the courts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is meant by Terms implied by Statute?

A
  • In contracts for the sale of goods and supply of services certain basic provisions are implied by statute in order to provide protection to purchasers.
  • They are put there by Parliament.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Why do we use Terms implied by Statute?

A

Why?
This is generally done for core issues where it is seen as reasonable that such matters are automatically written into a contract

Implication:
These terms almost always cannot be contracted out of

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are some examples of Terms implied by Statute?

A
  • Sale of Goods Act 1979
  • Transactions for goods between businesses (B2B)
  • Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
  • Transactions for services between businesses. (B2B)
  • Consumer Rights Act 2015
  • Transactions for goods and services between businesses and consumers. (B2C)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How is the Consumer Rights Act (2015) different to the Sale of Goods Act (1979)?

A
  • CRA relates to transactions for goods and services between businesses and consumers. (B2C)
  • Also brought together the Sale of Goods Act and Sale of Goods and Services Act. (for consumers)
  • All B2B (and consumer transactions concluded before 2015), SGA and SGSA apply.
  • As we are dealing with businesses and goods, we’ll refer to the SGA first with the CRA in brackets.
  • E.g. s12 SOGA (s17 CRA)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are the Key Provisions of Sales of Goods Contracts?

A
  • S.12 SOGA (s. 17 CRA) –> implies that the seller has a right to sell the goods.
  • S.13 SOGA (s 11 CRA) –> implies a term that the goods will correspond to their description –> Applies to goods that haven’t been seen by the buyer (as per the Amazon description)
  • S.14 SOGA (ss 9-10 CRA) –> implies a term that the goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose.
  • Ss.13 and 14 (description and quality) are the ones that cause the most disputes.
  • Both are treated as conditions, thus a breach can lead to repudiation of the contract, not just damages.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the case law to do with section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act?

A

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What was the case of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)?

A
  • In June 1931 Dr Grant purchased woollen underwear from a retailer.
  • There was nothing to say the underwear should be washed before wearing and Dr Grant did not do so.
  • He suffered a skin irritation within nine hours of first wearing them.
  • The garments in question were alleged to contain an excess of sulphur compounds.
  • Grant also sued the manufacturer, Australian Knitting Mills alleging that they had been negligent in failing to take reasonable care in the preparation of the garments.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the Issue of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)?

A

Issue:

Description of goods when seen by purchaser

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What was the Ruling of Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)?

A

Ruling:
The pants were not of satisfactory quality.
It isn’t normal practise to wash before wearing and the claimant had normal skin.
Also s14 – fitness for purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

How does section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act apply for Goods that have been seen?

A
  • Even if the consumer has seen the goods, it is assume they are relying on the description.
  • But there has to be some kind of description.
  • Widely accepted now – e.g. Supermarket shelves
  • Does not apply to all descriptive words (because of distinction between terms and mere representations)
  • Relates to the intentions of the parties.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the Case for section 13 of the Sales of Goods Act when relying on the Description?

A

Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What was the Case of Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)?

A
  • The claimant purchased a painting from the defendant for £6,000. The painting was described in an auction catalogue as being by German impressionist artist Gabrielle Munter.
  • Both the buyers and the sellers were London art dealers.
  • The sellers were not experts on German paintings whilst the buyers specialised in German paintings.
  • The purchasers sent their experts to inspect the painting before agreeing to purchase.
  • After the sale the buyers discovered that the painting was a fake
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the Issue of Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)?

A

Issue:

Description of goods when seen by purchaser

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the Ruling of Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)?

A

Ruling:
By sending their experts to inspect the painting this meant the sale was no longer by description.
The buyers had NOT RELIED on the description.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Can Ignorance be used in the Sales of Goods Act?

A
  • Under section 13 relating to the description ignorance can be relied on
  • It related to the intention of the parties
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What were the 3 cases related to ignorance as a reliable defence in the Sales of Goods Act?

A
  • Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)
  • Moore v Landauer (1921)
  • Arcos v Ronassem (1933)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the Case of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A
  • Ashington Piggeries devised a recipe for mink feed, contracting in 1960 with Christopher Hill to supply ingredients and compound them.
  • In February 1961 Christopher Hill entered into a contract with Norwegian company Sildemelutvalget to supply Norwegian herring meal rather than the herring meal previously used.
  • The sodium nitrite preservative used in the Norwegian herring meal produced a substance, toxic to many animals.
  • Large numbers of mink died.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is the Issue of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A

Issue: Description of goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What is the Ruling of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A

Ruling:
While quality issues or contamination did not make an ingredient different in definition. there was a reasonable expectation of quality where ingredient suppliers knew the purpose of the ingredient and had reason to know the risks. (see S14 also)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What is the Case of Moore v Landauer (1921)?

A
  • A contract for the sale of 3,100 tins of peaches described the tins as being packed in cases of 30.
  • Price went down in the meantime.
  • When they arrived the tins were packed in cases of 24 although the agreed overall number of tins was supplied.
  • Landauer refused to pay.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the Issue of Moore v Landauer (1921)?

A

Issue:

Description of goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What is the Ruling of Moore v Landauer (1921)?

A

Ruling:
The buyer
was entitled to reject the consignment as the packing materials was part of the contract.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the Case of Arcos v Ronassem (1933)?

A
  • A contract for staves of wood for making barrels – ½” thick.
  • Price went down in the meantime.
  • Staves were not all ½” but were fit for purpose.
  • Buyer rejected the goods.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What is the Issue of Arcos v Ronassem (1933)?

A

Issue:

Description of goods

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

What is the Ruling of Arcos v Ronassem (1933)?

A

Ruling:
The buyer was entitled to reject the consignment as they were not as described.

If the seller had wanted a tolerance, they should have inserted it in the contract, else they could routinely sell slightly less than contracted.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What are the different Subsections of the Sales of Goods Act under Section 14?

A
  • s14(2) SOGA
  • Deals with SATISFACTORY quality.
  • Used to be MERCHANTABLE quality
  • s14(3) SOGA
  • Deals with fitness for purpose.
  • S14 only deals with sales in the course of a business – NOT private sales.
  • S13 deals with ALL sales
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is the Common Issue between Subsection 2 and 3 of Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act?

A
  • Common Issues between ss14(2&3) SOGA
  • All goods sold under the contract (including packaging) are covered by law. (Geddling v Marsh 1920)
  • The liability of the supplier is strict. (no defence to say that reasonable care had been exercised) Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co 1905)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What are the 4 Cases to do with Section 13 of the Sales of Goods act to do with Quality and Fitness for Purpose?

A
  • Geddling v Marsh (1920)
  • Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)
  • Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)
  • Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What was the Case of Geddling v Marsh (1920)?

A
  • Geddling was supplied with the mineral water by the defendant in bottles.
  • The bottles were delivered in cases and the course of business was that she was charged threepence for the mineral water in each bottle and one penny in respect of the bottle itself.
  • If the plaintiff returned the bottle she got the penny back.
  • A bottle smashed and she sued for injuries.
  • Marsh said that the bottle was still his and hadn’t been sold.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What was the Issue of Geddling v Marsh (1920)?

A

Issue:

All goods sold under the contract (including packaging) are covered by law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

What was the Ruling of Geddling v Marsh (1920)?

A

The judge found that although there was no sale of the bottle to the plaintiff, he considered that to be immaterial for this purpose.
The bottle was still covered by the statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What was the Case of Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)?

A
  • In June, 1951, Mrs. Wilson ordered one ton of Coalite from Rickett Cockerell & Co.
    In November, 1951, she took some of the material which they had delivered to her and which she thought was Coalite and put it on the fire.
  • A detonator in the Coalite exploded damaging the house.
  • Originally held the Coalite was merchantable as it was the detonator which had exploded.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What was the Issue of Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)?

A

Issue:

All goods sold under the contract (including packaging) are covered by law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What was the Ruling of Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)?

A

Ruling:
On appeal, the Coalite was sold in bags, so the entire bag was not fit for purpose as a fuel for the house. Contaminants made the good unsatisfactory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What was the Case of Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)?

A
  • Instructions about weed-killer had to be followed to the letter, or claim for merchantability would be lost.
  • The instruction said that the poison should only be used at certain stages of growth which was misunderstood by the buyer.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What was the Issue of Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)?

A

Issue:

All goods sold under the contract (including packaging) are covered by law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What was the Ruling of Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)?

A

Ruling:
- The goods meant not just the goods themselves, but the container, packaging and any instructions supplied with the goods. If the instructions were wrong or misleading the goods were not of merchantable quality or fit for the purpose contrary to the requirements of s14(2) or (3) breach. - However the court found as a fact that the instructions were not misleading

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

What was the Case of Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)?

A
  • Aylesbury supplied milk to Frost.
  • It contained some germs and Frost’s wife contracted typhoid and died.
  • Frost sued Aylesbury in contract who argued that no amount of reasonable care on their part could have discovered the germs.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What was the Issue of Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)?

A

Issue:

Quality & Fitness for Purpose – Strict Liability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What was the Ruling of Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)?

A

Ruling:

The Court of Appeal ruled that the clear wording of the Act left no room for such an argument.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What is meant by Satisfactory Quality under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act?

A

The standard that a reasonable person would find satisfactory (not the buyer or seller).

  • Any description applied to the goods.
  • Defects that should have been discovered after examination.
  • Price.
  • Freedom from minor defects.
  • Hidden defects (safety).
  • Durability.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Under Subsection 2A section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act How does Satisfactory Quality relate to descriptions?

A

Any description applied to the goods

  • Differing descriptions lead to differing expectations.
  • Where defects have been brought to the attention of the buyer, a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods accordingly.
  • ‘Shop soiled’ not enough –> what does this mean –> battered or just has a few finger prints on
44
Q

What was the Case under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Satisfactory Quality?

A

Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)

45
Q

What was the Case of Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)?

A
  • Bartlett bought a car from SM Ltd.
  • SM Ltd told Bartlett about a clutch and oil gauge issue.
  • The contract mentioned these issues and offered to be repaired or sold cheaper.
  • Barlett agreed on the latter. A couple of weeks later the clutch was found to have a serious defect.
46
Q

What was the Issue of Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)?

A

Issue:

Satisfactory Quality

47
Q

What was the Ruling of Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)?

A

Ruling:

The car was reasonably fit for use as a car on the road. Car was bought subject to the defects.

48
Q

Under Subsection 2A section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act How does Satisfactory Quality relate to defects that should have been discovered after examination?

A

Defects that should have been discovered after examination.

  • Can be Patent – discoverable by reasonable inspection.
  • Or Latent – cannot be discoverable, e.g. building foundations not discoverable for years afterwards.
49
Q

What was the Case Under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Defects that should have been discovered after examination?

A

Wren v Holt (1903)

50
Q

What was the Case of Wren v Holt (1903)?

A
  • Wren bought beer from a pub which was contaminated with arsenic.
  • Pub owner argued it came from a reputable supplier and he had done all he reasonably could to ensure the beer was fit for consumption.
51
Q

What was the Issue of Wren v Holt (1903)?

A

Issue:

Satisfactory Quality - Defects that should have been discovered after examination.

52
Q

What was the Ruling of Wren v Holt (1903)?

A

Ruling:

The judge ruled that the pub was liable. As Wren became ill after drinking the beer, it showed it wasn’t of the required quality.

53
Q

What is the assumed relationship between Price and Satisfactory Quality under Section 14 subsection (2C) b of the Sales of Goods Act?

A

The more you pay, the better quality you get.

54
Q

What are the two Cases Under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Price?

A
  • Brown v Craiks (1970)

- Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)

55
Q

What was the Case of Brown v Craiks (1970)?

A
  • Two orders given by Brown (textile merchants) to Craiks (cloth manufacturers).
  • Those orders were for the manufacture of considerable quantities of rayon cloth to a detailed specification.
  • There was a misunderstanding as to the purpose for which the buyers wanted the cloth. They wanted it to fulfil contracts for cloth for making dresses. The sellers thought it was for industrial use.
56
Q

What was the Issue of Brown v Craiks (1970)?

A

Issue:

Quality –> Price

57
Q

What was the Ruling of Brown v Craiks (1970)?

A

Ruling:
the contract price was a low price for cloth of that description for use for making dresses but ‘higher than would have been normal for it as an industrial fabric, but not unreasonably high for Craiks constructing it for such a purpose.

58
Q

What was the Case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)?

A
  • Rogers bought a Range Rover (as new) for £14k in Nov 1981.
  • After a few week it developed faults and was returned to the dealer and replaced.
  • Replacement car also faulty.
  • After several attempts at repairs, in May ‘82, Rogers got fed up and returned the car.
59
Q

What was the Issue of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)?

A

Issue:

Quality - Price

60
Q

What was the Ruling of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)?

A

Ruling:

CofA said right to return the car. The expectations when buying a Range Rover were higher than when buying another car.

61
Q

What was the Cases Under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Freedom From Minor Defects making a product unsatisfactory?

A

Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]

62
Q

What was the Case of Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]?

A

The goods were purchased for £450 and the cost of putting them right was £35.

63
Q

What was the Issue of Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]?

A

Issue: Quality - Freedom From Minor Defects

64
Q

What was the Ruling of Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]?

A

Ruling:
The buyer was held entitled to reject the goods, even though the defects, though they could not be said to be trivial, were minor.

65
Q

When do Defect make a good unsatisfactory under Section 14 Subsection (2B) d of Satisfactory Quality?

A

Satisfactory Quality - S.14 (2B) d –> Hidden Defects (Safety).

  • Safety defects put goods in breach of the condition as to merchantable quality.
66
Q

What were the 2 Cases under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with hidden Defects and Safety?

A
  • Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987]

- Godley v Perry (1960)

67
Q

What was the Case of Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987]?

A
  • A car had been delivered to the buyer three weeks before the purported rejection.
  • In the interval the purchaser had driven it 140 miles.
  • There was blockage in the spill over tube which caused £700 of damage to the engine.
68
Q

What was the Issue of Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987]?

A

Issue:

Quality –> hidden Defects

69
Q

What was the Ruling of Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987]?

A

Ruling:

Safety defects put goods in breach of the condition as to merchantable quality.

70
Q

What was the Case of Godley v Perry (1960)?

A

A six year old boy Godley, bought a plastic catapult from a stationer Perry. Godley used the catapult properly but it broke in his hands and injured his eye.

71
Q

What was the Issue of Godley v Perry (1960)?

A 
Issue: 
Hidden Defects (Safety)
72
Q

What was the Ruling of Godley v Perry (1960)?

A

Ruling:

Held. The use of the catapult was implied and as the catapult was not fit for its purpose Godley could recover damages.

73
Q

When do good become unsatisfactory due to there Durability under Section 14 Subsection (2B) e of Satisfactory Quality?

A
  • How long do the goods last?
  • A warranty which results in damages only (repairs).
  • It will not cause a breach of condition (entitle you to reject the goods)
74
Q

What was the Case under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Durability?

A

Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)

75
Q

What was the Case of Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)?

A
  • Mash bought potatoes from Emmanuel.
  • They were shipped from Cyprus to Liverpool.
  • When they arrived, they were not fit for purpose.
76
Q

What was the Issue of Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)?

A

Issue:

Durability – how long should things last?

77
Q

What was the Ruling of Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)

A

Ruling:

Goods had to remain durable by the time the goods arrived, not just when they were shipped.

78
Q

Do Shop Guarantee apply under the Sales of Goods Act?

A

Satisfactory Quality - S.14 (2B) e
Durability

  • What about a shop guarantee?
  • Separate to the SOGA.
  • Individual to the store.
  • Repair or replace in that period.
  • May be different to a court decision.
79
Q

What does Fitness for Purpose mean under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act?

A

Satisfactory Quality - S.14 (3)
Fitness for Purpose

  • If the buyer makes it known the purpose for buying the good, then the seller must
    supply it accordingly.
  • If goods are to be used for their normal purpose, it is assumed the buyer need not say anything.
80
Q

What were the 2 Cases under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Fitness for Purpose?

A
  • Manchester Liners v Rea (1922)

- Priest v Last (1903)

81
Q

What was the Case of Manchester Liners v Rea (1922?

A
  • The seller supplied coal to be used in a ship. The coal delivered by the seller was unsuitable for the steamer (not enough energy generated) for which the buyer intended it to be used.
  • Rea sued saying that the coal wasn’t fit for purpose.
82
Q

What was the Issue of Manchester Liners v Rea (1922?

A

Issue: Fitness for Purpose

83
Q

What was the Ruling of Manchester Liners v Rea (1922?

A

Ruling:
Held – By Lord Green, Ships differed in their types and requirements, and coal merchants knew this, there was a breach of the implied condition.

84
Q

What was the Case of Priest v Last (1903)?

A
  • The buyer bought a hot-water bottle from the seller (a chemist).
  • His wife used the hot-water bottle and then after 5 times, the bottle burst and the wife was scalded.
  • Evidence showed that, the bottle was not fit for use as a hot-water bottle.
  • The seller stated that, the buyer had not made known the purpose for how the hot-water bottle would be used.
85
Q

What was the Issue of Priest v Last (1903)?

A

Issue: Fitness for Purpose

86
Q

What was the Ruling of Priest v Last (1903)?

A

Ruling:

  • the seller has entitled to recover the expenses in the treatment of the buyer’s wife injuries.
  • Because the buyer relied on the seller’s judgment, he had in fact used the hot-water bottle for the usual purpose.
87
Q

What were the 2 Cases under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Fitness for Purpose and buyers indicating specific uses for the produce ?

A
  • M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd (1987)

- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)

88
Q

What was the Case of M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd (1987)?

A
  • A proprietary liquid waterproofing compound called Lupguard was stacked in plastic buckets in
    Kuwait in full sunshine.
  • The buckets melted and collapsed, the Lupguard was lost.
  • It was known the goods were being shipped to the Middle East.
  • Were the buckets fit for purpose?
89
Q

What was the Issue of M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd (1987)?

A

Issue: Fitness for Purpose

90
Q

What was the Ruling of M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd (1987)?

A

Ruling:

  • Lupdine knew that they would be shipped to the Middle East so should have used buckets that could withstand the heat.
  • When Lupdine tried to sue the bucket manufacturer, the court held that they were generic buckets and hadn’t known that they would be used in such hot conditions.
91
Q

What was the Case of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A
  • Ashington Piggeries devised a recipe for mink feed, contracting in 1960 with Christopher Hill to supply ingredients and compound them.
  • In February 1961 Christopher Hill entered into a contract with Norwegian company Sildemelutvalget to supply Norwegian herring meal rather than the herring meal previously used.
  • The sodium nitrite preservative used in the Norwegian herring meal produced a substance, toxic to many animals.
  • Large numbers of mink died.
92
Q

What was the Issue of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A

Issue: Description of goods

93
Q

What was the Ruling of Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)?

A

Ruling:
It is sufficient for a buyer to indicate a range of uses. The buyer had indicated he would be feeding mink.
See also S13

94
Q

Under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act how does Fitness for Purpose relate to the Skill and Judgement of the Seller?

A

Satisfactory Quality - S.14 (3)
Fitness for Purpose

  • The buyer must reasonably rely on the skill and judgement of the seller.
  • In consumer transactions, the seller is under a higher standard.
95
Q

What were the 2 Cases under Section 14 of the Sales of Goods Act to do with Fitness for Purpose and the Skill and Judgement of the Seller?

A
  • Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)

- Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934)

96
Q

What was the Case of Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)?

A
  • The claimants bought a specific camshaft for their speedboat.
  • The camshaft was not suitable for the boat due to an unusual defect in the boat.
  • The camshaft wore out.
97
Q

What was the Issue of Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)?

A

Issue: Fitness for Purpose –> Skill and Judgement of the Seller

98
Q

What was the Ruling of Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)?

A

Ruling:
As the claimants had specifically asked for that particular camshaft, the seller assumed they knew whether it as suitable.

99
Q

What was the Case of Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934) ?

A
  • The defendant entered into a contract to manufacture a propeller for a vessel in accordance with a number of specifications.
  • The only element unspecified was the thickness of the blades.
  • The propellers were found to produce noise above the level permitted for the vessel to receive the classification sought by the owner.
100
Q

What was the Issue of Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934) ?

A

Fitness for Purpose – Skill and Judgement of the Seller

101
Q

What was the Ruling of Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934) ?

A

_ The court found that the defendant had breached the implied warranty that the propeller would be fit for the intended purpose of obtaining the specified classification, because the thickness of the blades had been left to the skill and judgment of the defendant_

102
Q

What is Terms implied by the Courts?

A

The courts use:
- The ‘officious bystander’ test to ascertain if a term (not expressly stated) is so obvious (to give effect to the intention of the parties), that it should be imputed into a contract
OR
- The ‘business efficacy’ test to introduce terms (not expressly stated) which are deemed important (in a business sense) to make a contract meaningful.

103
Q

What was the Case to do with Terms implied by the Courts?

A

The Moorcock (1889)

104
Q

What was the Case of The Moorcock (1889)?

A
  • The claimant moored his ship at the defendant’s wharf on the river Thames.
  • The ship became damaged due to uneven surfaces and rocks on the river bed.
  • The claimant sought to claim damages from the defendant and the defendant argued that there was no provision in the contract warranting the condition of the river bed.
105
Q

What was the Issue of The Moorcock (1889)?

A

Issue:

Fitness for Purpose –> terms implied by the Court

106
Q

What was the Ruling of The Moorcock (1889)?

A

Ruling:

  • The court stated that there was an implied term that the moorings would be reasonably safe for the ship.
  • The court introduced the business efficacy test. If the contract makes business sense without the term, the courts will not imply a term

18BSA026 - Principles of Law (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions