statutory implied terms Flashcards
what are statutory implied terms?
what are the three genera categories off implied terms?
terms implies by statute: by parliment, government writing legislation
terms implies by custom and usage
terms implies by the courts
what are terns implied by statute?
in contracts for the sale of goods and supply of services certain basic provisions are implied by statute in order to provide protection to purchases
put there by parliment
is everything you buy subject to statutory legislation?
yes
why are some terms implies by statute?
because they are core issues you shouldn’t have to negotiate they almost cannot be contracted out
when can you get your money back?
we ask
does it match the description?
is it of satisfactory quality?
is it fit for purpose?
if these aren’t in place you have recompense through the law to get your money back
what are some terms implies by statute?
sale of goods act 1979
supply of goods and services act 1982
consumer right act 2015
what is supply of goods and services act 1982?
transactions for services between businesses (B2B)
what is sale of goods act 1979?
B2B
what is consumer right act 2015?
B2C made it so consumers have the same rights and businesses
only included sales goods act and a small bit of consumer rights act
what are key provisions of the sales of goods act?
S.2. SOGA specifies that a contract of sale involves the transfer, or an agreement to transfer, the property in goods from the seller to the buyer, in exchange for a money consideration, called the price
S.12 SOGA implies that the seller has a right to sell the goods.
S.13 SOGA implies a term that the goods will correspond to their description.
S.14 SOGA implies a term that the goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose.
what happens when breaching s13 s14?
any breach of an implied term s13 and s14 means you can get recompense eg if you say your going to buy something for a fiver and dont its breached as they are both treated as conditions
you can get a refund, reduction in price, repair, replacement
what does s13 apply to?
it has to match the description of the advert it applies to goods that havent been seen by the buyer eg amazon, it has to exactly match the description
if you’ve seen the good they still need to be of satisfactory quality and it must till correspond to the description however if there isn’t a description then. it doesn’t have to
what case supports the idea goods have to be of satisfactory quality even if seen?
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
about: woolen underwear
point of law: even if the goods have been seen they still need to be of satisfactory quality
for section 13 of the sales of goods act (SOGA) when does reliance on the description no longer apply?
if you are an expert in the field or if you bring in an expert to verify as your then relying on the expert and not the description
Harlingdon and Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)
about: german art fake sold
point of law: there cant be a sale by description if the buyer has not relied on the sellers description
Ashinton Piggeries Ltd vs Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)
about: mink feed killing the mink
point of law: if the commercial characteristic is not being met you can still claim against the sale of goods act as its not fuffilled what the product was for
Moore and Laundauer (1921)
about: tins of peaches in cases of 24 not 30 so the deal was rejected even though the same quantity was offered
point of law: goods must match the exact description so you are entitled to reject
what happens when a retailer has the wrong description and blame the manufacturer?
they still must take blame as the contract is between the customer and retailer
do you have to provide a description when selling a good?
no
what does s.14 SOGA imply?
implies a term that the goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose
Geddling v Marsh (1920)
about: bottled water injuring someone, they had not paid for the bottle but only the water inside the bottle
the judge said there was no sale of the bottle but it is still covered
point of law: all good sold under the contract are covered by the law including packaging eg if a fridge door is dented its part of the packaging as its part of the product but if the box was just dented then this cant be sued
Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)
about: coal and coalite
point of law: goods contaminated with another substance are unsatisfsctory s.14 even if the contaminant would be satisfactory on its own
Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)
about: instruction about weed killer
point of law: unclear instructions could render what would otherwise be a satisfactory product, unsatisfactory
what are some common issues between ss14 SOGA?
-packaging
-liability of the supplier is strict
Frost v Ayelsbury Dairy Co, Ltd (1905)
about: mrs frost dead from milk suppplied
point of law: the liability of the supplier is strict this means that it is no defence to say that reasonable care had been excercised
who makes the judgement if something is of satisfactory quality or not?
THE JUDGE
what are the list of things the judge goes through in order to identify if a good is of satisfactory quality?
any description applied to the goods
defects that should have been discovered after examination
price (more pay better quality etc)
freedom from minor defects
hidden defects
durability (how long shoud it last)
what is meant by defects that should have been discovered after examination?
eg if you go to buy a car and can see the front bumper is hanging off but you still buy it you cant sue as you should be able to see the defect
Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)
about: SM Ltd told Bartlett about clutch and oil gauge issue and offered to buy it cheaper or get it repaired he then found the clutch has a serious issue
point of law: where defect have been drawn to the buyers attention, a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods accordingly
Wren vs Holt (1903)
about: beer cotaminated
point of law: a buyer rakes goods subject to any patent defect which is or ought to have been discovered where an examination of the goods has taken place
Brown v Craiks (1970)
about: sellers sold cloth for industrial use at a cheaper price even though brown wanted cloth for clothes due to miscommunication brown bought the cloth
point of law: the more you pay, the better the quality you can expect
Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)
about: rogers bough range rover new and had faults so he replaced it multiple times, when he had enough and wanted to refund they refused
the judge agreed arguing not only was it bad quality but for the price the quality should be higher
point of law: the more you pay the better quality you can expect
Jackson v Rotax motor and cycle co ltd (1910)
about: the goods were purchased for £450 and the cost of putting them right was £35
result: entitiled to reject he goods over quality
point of law; would the defects prevent the goods from being reasonably sold
what do hidden defects do?
safety defects put goods in breach of the condition as to satisfactory quality
Bernstein and Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd (1987)
about: car delivered and blockage spill over after 140 miles causing £700 damages
Result: money back
point of law: hidden defect that can case safety issues is not a minor defect
Godley v Perry (1960)
about: six year old boy catapult lost an eye even though he was using it properly
result: catapult was not fit for purpose as it was being used properly and still caused injury
point of law: a hidden defect that can cause a safety issue is not a minor defect
Mash and Murrel v Emmanuel (1961)
about: bought potatoes from emmanuel and they were bad when they got to Mash and murrel
result: goods had to have remained durale by the time they arrived
point of law: goods should be durabe and last for a reasonable amount of time
if a good is sold more cheaply in a budget shop is it expected to last as long as goods in an expensive shop?
no
what does it mea to be fit for purpose?
if the buyer makes it known the purpose for buying the good, then the seller must supply it accordingly
if you didnt say anything then sellers must assume
Manchester Liners v Rea (1922)
Rea sued after getting coal that wasnt powerful enough for what she intended to use it for
point of law: if the buyer makes it known the purpose for the buying good then the seller must supply it accordingly
Preist v Last (1903)
about: hot water bottle scolded them when it burst
result: wasnt seen as fit for purpose as they were using it how its intended to be used anyways
point of law: where goods are to be used for their normal purpose, it is assumed that the buyer need not say anything
M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v Lupdine Ltd (1987)
about: lupdine buckets melted in sun, they knew where the buckets were being shipped to but he didnt tell the bucket manufacturer
result: buckets were generic as they didnt know what the use was
point of law: when the buyer indicates a range of (or specific) uses of the product the seller must meet the expectations
Slater and Slater and finning (1996)
the claimants bought a specific camshaft for speedboat which wasnt suitable as there was a defect in the boat, they didnt ask for expertise so the seller had to assume
point of law: the buyer must reasonably rely on the skill and judgement of the seller
Cammel Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934)
about: hellicopter
point of law: the buyer must reasonably rely on the skill and judgement of the seller
what are the terms that are impotant to make the contract viable
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
The ‘business efficacy’ test to introduce terms (not expressly stated) which are deemed important (in a business sense) to make a contract meaningful.
The Moorcock (1889)
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.
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.
Point of Law:
If the contract makes business sense without the term, the courts will not imply a term
