Statutory Implied Terms (Cases) Flashcards
Even if the goods have been seen, they still need to be of satisfactory quality.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)
There can’t be a sale by description if the buyer has not relied on the seller’s description.
Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)
A term that identifies the very commercial characteristics of unseen goods must be one which the buyer may rely on under these provisions
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)
The goods must exactly match the description.
Moore v Landauer (1921)
All goods sold under the contract are covered by the law, including packaging.
Geddling v Marsh (1920)
Unclear instructions could render what would otherwise be a satisfactory product, unsatisfactory.
Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)
The liability of the supplier is strict. This means that it is no defence to say that reasonable care had been exercised
Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)
Where defects have been drawn to the buyer’s attention, a buyer is deemed to have accepted the goods accordingly
Bartlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd (1965)
The more you pay, the better the quality you can expect.
Brown v Craiks (1970)
A hidden defect that can cause safety issue is not a minor defect.
Godley v Perry (1960)
Goods should be durable and last for a reasonable amount of time.
Mash & Murrell v Emmanuel (1961)
If the buyer makes it known the purpose for buying the good, then the seller must supply it accordingly.
Manchester Liners v Rea (1922)
If goods are to be used for their normal purpose, it is assumed the buyer need not say anything.
Priest v Last (1903)
When the buyer indicates a range of (or specific) uses of the product the seller must meet the expectations.
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972) (Again)
The buyer must reasonably rely on the skill and judgement of the seller.
Slater & Slater v Finning (1996)
