Sale Of Goods Flashcards
Clegg
V
Anderson
Safety
Yacht naught for £25000 held that there was a fault and the reasonable person would not have noticed this.
Reasonable person is not an expert
Glyweds distribution ltd
V
S koronka and co ltd
A reasonable price does not automatically equal the market value
The price must be fair and just to both parties which is not necessarily market value
Implied term to transfer good title
S12 SGA
S17 CRA
Duty to pass good unchallengeable title to goods in exchange for price
Promises they are free from any change or encumbrance not disclosed BEFORE contract made
Buyer is entitled to enjoy quiet possession
Niblett
V
Confectioners materials co ltd
Breach of right to to sell and Lord Atkins said quiet possession
c purchased condensed milk from D, ‘nissly’
Nestle said if tried to sell they would apply for injunction
Agreed not to and brough action against sellers
Held: sellers did not have right to sell and this entitled them to rescind contract
Lord Atkin also said breach of quiet possession
Microbeads ac
V
Vinhurst road markings
Breach of QP but not to sell
C purchased road markings machines from D, after 3rd party granted patent tight meaning C could not use machines unless granted license to do so
No breach of right to sell as could at time but breach of QP as could not enjoy QP of goods
Nemo dat quod non habet
S21(1) SGA
Exceptions
Personal bar
Mercantile agent
Seller in possession after sale
Buyer in possession after sale
Voidable title?
Eastern distributors ltd
V
Gold ring
Personal bar
Where Owner of goods represents to buyer that person selling is owner or is acting as an agent
True owner is barred from denying that authority and buyer acquires good title
Mercantile agent
Exception to nemo dat
Factors act 1889
Archivent sales and development ltd
V
Strathclyde regional council
Buyer in possession after sale but ownership still with seller
Seller delivered goods on credit to contractor who was building school
Contractor sold goods to school
Ownership still passed as they acquired in good faith
MacLeod
V
Kerr
Voidable title.
A sold car to B, B paid with stolen cheque, B sold to C. A and C both claiming ownership
Held: belongs to C as voidable contract wasn’t challenged in time.
A may still have action against B for original purchase price but not car
Holder of voidable title is still owner so not strictly nemo dat
Woodburn
V
Andrew Motherwell
Transfer of ownership
S18 rules are only a guide to intention
Where intention clear under s17, not need to resort to rules
Munro
V
Balnagowan estate co
Rule 1 - deliverable state
Buyer enters sellers land to cut down and remove timbre
Ownership passed to buyer as goods in deliverable state
Gowans
V
Bowe and sons
Rule 2 - S under duty to do something which puts them in a deliverable state
Agreed when potatoes ready farmer would dig up and put in pits on farm. When B ready to collected was to lift clean and put potatoes in bags.
S became bankrupt after Ps put in pits
Held: property had passed and thing had been done which put them in deliverable state
Kennedy’s trs
V
Hamilton and Manson
Necessary weighing etc by S for ascertainment of price
Rule only applicable if duty is on seller
Brown
V
Marr
Rule 4 - goods delivered on approvals
Any act adopting transaction eg sells, lends, hires goods
Will constitute approval even if not explicitly stated
Carlos federspeil and co
V
Charles twigg and co
Rule 5 - future/ unascertained goods
Seller merely setting apart goods with intention to use in contract is NOT enough
Must have intention to attach contract irrevocably to goods
SGA general rule about risk
S20(1)
In non-consumer sales risk follows ownership unless parties agree otherwise
Risk does not depend on physical possession
Demby
V
Hamilton
Exception to risk following ownership - SGA
If there has been a delay in delivery of goods which is fault of one of parties
Apple juice in casks destroyed and was delay in buyer taking delivery. Even though property remained with S, S could claim price as buyer was bearer of risk
General rule about risk
CRA
S29
Risk lies with trader until C has physical possession
Rights and remedies under SGA for commercial and private sales
Implied duties relating to
Description
Satisfactory quality
Fitness for particular stated purpose
Confirms to sample
Beale
V
Taylor
SGA - description
T put advert for car in newspaper described as a herald convertible
Actually a cut and shut
Held: as 2 different cars melded together did not conform to description
Harlington and Leinster enterprises
V
Christopher hull fine art ltd
S13 - description SGA
Must be reliance on stated description
S made clear knew nothing of artist and B was art dealer, turned out to be fake. Held no reliance on seller so no action
Bernstein
V
Pamson motors ltd
S14 quality and fitness
Buyer of rolls Royce would not tolerate even the slightest blemish on its exterior paintwork whereas a purchaser at the more humbler end of the range may be less fastidious
Money paid should reflect what received
Thain
V
Anniesland trade centre
S14 quality and fitness
T paid £2995 for 2nd hand car. 80 000 miles of clock and 6 years old
After 2 weeks gear box faulty then few, car could not be used
Held: was SQ as durability not quality are to be expected of used car
Determine factors were low price and High mileage
Griffiths
V
Peter Conway
S14 goods fit for particular purpose
Contracted dermatitis by wearing tweed coat, skin unusually sensitive, okay for normal
Could not claim under 14(3) as had not informed seller of her sensitive skin
Grant
V
Australia knitting mills
14(3) goods fit for purpose
No need to specify particular purpose for which goods are needed if it is obvious
Godley
V
Perry
S15 sale by sample
Child struck in eye after using catapult which broke. S had bough from wholesalers
Defect not apparent upon reasonable examination
Bulk is meant to correspond with sample, could sue W
Pini and co
V
Smith and co
If buyer fails to examine goods at time of purchase but does so much later
He is deemed to have accepted them
Truk ltd
V
Tokakidis
However reasonable period in which to reject goods is likely to be looked at leniently by courts
Contrasts pinni
McDonald
V
Pollock
Fishing boat was main asset of fishing business
If goods being sold are key to source of business then the sale will be deemed to be in the course of business
