Statutory Implied Terms - Case Sections

Question 1

What are the Key Provisions of Sales of Goods Contracts?

Answer 1

• 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.

Question 2

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

Answer 2

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

Question 3

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

Answer 3

Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)

Question 4

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

Answer 4

• Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)
• Moore v Landauer (1921)
• Arcos v Ronassem (1933)

Question 5

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

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

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

Answer 6

• 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)

Question 7

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

Answer 7

• Geddling v Marsh (1920)
• Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)
• Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)
• Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)

Question 8

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

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

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

Answer 9

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

Question 10

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

Answer 10

Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)

Question 11

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?

Answer 11

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.

Question 12

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

Answer 12

Wren v Holt (1903)

Question 13

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

Answer 13

The more you pay, the better quality you get.

Question 14

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

Answer 14

• Brown v Craiks (1970)

- Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)

Question 15

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

Answer 15

Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]

Question 16

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

Answer 16

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

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

Question 17

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

Answer 17

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

- Godley v Perry (1960)

Question 18

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

Answer 18

• 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)

Question 19

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

Answer 19

Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)

Question 20

Do Shop Guarantee apply under the Sales of Goods Act?

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

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

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

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

Answer 22

• Manchester Liners v Rea (1922)

- Priest v Last (1903)

Question 23

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 ?

Answer 23

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

- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)

Question 24

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

Answer 24

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.

Question 25

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?

Answer 25

• Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)

- Cammell Laird v Manganese Bronze Ltd (1934)

Question 26

What is Terms implied by the Courts?

Answer 26

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.

Question 27

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

Answer 27

The Moorcock (1889)