Week 4 Terms implied by statute

Question 1

Can you contract out of statutory implied terms

Answer 1

no

Question 2

State the year and who the sale of goods act is relavant to

Answer 2

Sale Of Goods Act 1979
Deals with business ot business transactions

Question 3

List the 4 key provisions of statutory implied terms

Answer 3

s.2 - Contract of a sale involves transfer
s.12 - The seller must have the right to sell the goods
s.13 - The goods must correspond to their description - for all sales
s.14 - The good must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose - only for business sales
These are linked to the 2015 Consumer rights act

Question 4

State the year and events that led up to Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills

Answer 4

Grant v. Australian Knitting Mill (1936)
Grant purchased woollen underwear from a retailer
There was nothing to say the pants should be washed
In under 9 hours Grant suffered from skin irritation
Grant sued manufacturer for negligence

Question 5

State the year, ruling and point of law in Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills

Answer 5

1936
Th ruling was in Grants favour as the pants were not fit for regular used and had no instruction to wash before use
The point of law here is even if goods are seen they need to be of satisfactory quality

Question 6

State the year and specific violation for Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills

Answer 6

1936
Violation under s.13 SOGA
goods must be satisfactory and fit for purpose

Question 7

State the year and events that led up to Herlingdon & Leinster v. Christopher Hill Fine Art

Answer 7

1990
The claimant purchased a £6000 painting
Both the seller and the buyer were London dealers and the sellers specified they were not experts on the art
The purchasers had the painting professionally inspected prior to purchase
After purchase it turns out that the painting was a fake

Question 8

State the year, ruling and point of law in Herlingdon & Leinster v. Christopher Hill Fine art

Answer 8

1990
The experts were sent to inspect the painting therefore the sale no longer relied on the description and the case was ruled in the defendants favour
The point of law is that it can’t be a sale by description if the buyer hadn’t relied on the description
Therefore not a violation s.13 - sale by description

Question 9

State the year and event leading up to Ashington Piggeries LTD v. Christopher Hill LTD

Answer 9

1972
Ashington devised a mink feed recipe
Christopher supplied this recipe to ashington using 3rd party supplier
The herring meal was toxic and caused a large number of mink to die

Question 10

State the year, ruling and point of Law in Ashington Piggeries LTD v. Christopher Hill LTD

Answer 10

1972
Ruled against Christopher as although the ingredients matched the description there is an expectation of quality which was not met as the mink died.The point of law is that a term that identifies commercial characteristics must be one which the buyer may rely on
Hence a violation of s.13 - the goods must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose

Question 11

State the year and events that led up to Moore v. Landauer

Answer 11

1921
A contract for the sale of tins being boxed in groups of 30
When the delivery arrived it was boxed in groups of 24
Landauer refused to pay

Question 12

State the year, ruling and point of law in Moore v. Landauer

Answer 12

1921
The case was ruled in Landauer favour as packing was part of the contract
The point of law here is that goods much match their description coming under s.13 - goods must exactly match their description

Question 13

State the year and events that led up to Arcos v. Rossanem

Answer 13

1933
The contract was for 1/2 inch thick brrels
Not all staves were 1/2 inch thick
They were still fit for purpose but the Rossanem rejected the goods

Question 14

State the year, ruling and point of Law in Arcos v. Rossanem

Answer 14

1933
The ruling was in Rossanems favour as he was entitled to reject the goods unless otherwise stated in the contract
The point of law here is that goods must exactly match their description and it comes under s.13 - SOGA

Question 15

State the year and events that led up to Wilson v. Rickett Cockerill

Answer 15

1954
The claimant, wilson ordered coalite
she took what was in the bag thinking it was coal and into her fireplace which subsequently detonated

Question 16

State the year, ruling and point of law in Wilson v. Ricket Cockerill

Answer 16

1954
The ruling was in the claimants favour, she had bought a bag of coal hence what was in the bag should’ve only been coal meaning the good was contaminated
The point of law is that contaminated goods are considered unsatisfactory for intended use classifying this violation underneath s.14 - the goods must be of satisfactory quality and purpose

Question 17

State the year and events leading up to Wormell v. RHM Agriculture

Answer 17

1986-1987
Instruction about a weed killer had to be followed or merchandise would be lost
the instruction were clear and stated poison should only be used at specific stages of growth

Question 18

State the year, ruling and point of Law in Wormell v. RHM Agriculture

Answer 18

1986-1987
Court ruled against wormell as the instructions were very clear
The point of law here is that unclear instructions can render a satisfactory product unsatisfactory
This is hence underneath the branch of s.14

Question 19

State the year and events that led up to Geddling v. Marsh

Answer 19

1920
Geddling was given water bottles by marsh
The bottles were glass and broke on delivery
She sued for injuries

Question 20

State the year, ruling and point of law in Geddling v. Marsh

Answer 20

1920
The judge found that although there was no sale the bottle was covered by statue
The point of law is that all goods under the contract are covered by the law, including the packaging
This comes under s.14 - SOGA - all goods must be of quality and fit for purpose

Question 21

State the year and events that led up to Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co

Answer 21

1905
Milk was supplied to Frost
Frost’s wife drank the milk and died of germs from the milk
Aylesbury argued that they could not have detected the germs that killed his wife

Question 22

State the year, ruling and point of law in Frost v. Aylesbury Dairy Co

Answer 22

1905
Court ruled in Frost’s favour, Aylesbury are liable and it is not an excuse to say reasonable care had been exercised. The point of law here is that SUppliers have strict liability and of course this comes under s.14 - good must be of quality and fit for purpose

Question 23

State the year and events that led to Barlett v. Sydney Marcus LTD

Answer 23

1965
Barlett bought a car and was told about the defects
Barlett was also offered in the contract to buy cheaper and a repair offer
Barlett agreed and found a serious defect later

Question 24

State the year, ruling and point of Law in Barlet v. Sydney Marcus LTD

Answer 24

1965
The car was bought for use and subject to defects so the cpurt ruled in Sydney Marcus’s favour. The point of law here is that the defects were brought to the attention of the buyer and he still bought the car
This comes underneath s.14

Question 25

What are the 6 conditions to consider a good of reasonable quality s.14

Answer 25

Description
Examination defects
Price
No minor defects
Hidden defects (safety)
Durability

Question 26

State the year and events that led up to Wren v. Holt

Answer 26

1903
Wren bough contaminated beer
Holt argued it came from a reputable supplier and that he was not liable

Question 27

State the year, ruling and point of law in Wren v. Holt

Answer 27

1903
Judge ruled that Holt was liable as the beer came from the pub and hence wasn’t of required quality
The point of law is that a buyer takes goods subject to patent defects which should have been discovered during examination

Question 28

State the year and events that led up to Rogers v. Parish

Answer 28

1987
Rogers bought a new range rover
after a few weeks it developed fault, hhe was given a replacement car which was also faulty
Rogers gave up with the car and asked for a refund which Parish attempted to reject

Question 29

State the year, ruling and point of law in Rogers v. Parish

Answer 29

1987
Court ruled in Rogers favour since he had bought a higher end expensive car and it is to be expected that the quality is good
The point of law is the more you pay the better quality you should expect and this comes under s.14 of the SOGA

Question 30

State the year and the events that led up to Jackson v. Rotax Motor

Answer 30

1910
Goods were purchased for 450 and the cost of repair was 35

Question 31

State the year, ruling and point of law in Jackson v. Rotax Motor

Answer 31

1910
The case was ruled in Jacksons favour, the buyer is entitled to reject goods even if the defects were minor
The point of law is would the defects prevent the good from being reasonably sold on. comes under s.14 of course

Question 32

State the year and events that led up to Godley v. Perry

Answer 32

1960
A six year old bought a catapult which had a hidden defect
It broke during its intended use and injured the boys eye

Question 33

State the year, ruling and point of law in Godley v. Perry

Answer 33

1960
Case was ruled in Godley’s favour, as the product was used for its intended purpose
The point of law is that hidden defects that cause safety injuries are not minor defects

Question 34

State the year and the events that led up to Mash & Murell v. Emmanuel

Answer 34

1961
Mash bought potatoes from Emmanuel
They were shipped but arrived unfit for purpose

Question 35

State the year, ruling and point of law in the Mash & Murell v. Emmanuel case

Answer 35

1961
The ruling was in Mash’s favour, goods should be durable for the time that they arrived, the point of law here is that goods should be durable and last a reasonable amount of time

Question 36

State the year and events that led up to Manchester Liners v. Rea

Answer 36

1922
Manchester Liners supplied coal, it wasn’t fit for purpose as it didn’t produce enough energy and Rea sued

Question 37

State the year, ruling and the point of law in Manchester Liners v. Rea

Answer 37

1922
Court ruled in Reas favour as the goods were not sufficient for its purpose which the supplier would’ve been aware of.
The point of law is that if the buyer makes the purpose known then supply must be done so accordingly

Question 38

State the year and events that led up to Priest v. Last

Answer 38

1903
Priest bought a hot water bottle
His wife used it 5 times and on the fifth it exploded and scalded her
Evidence shows bottle wasn’t fit for use, seller tried to say that buyer hadn’t stated intended use

Question 39

State the year, ruling and point of law in Priest v. Last

Answer 39

1903
Ruling was against Last, as the bottle wasn’t fit for use. The point of law here is that goods are used for normal purposes the buyer is not required to make specifications

Question 40

State the year and events that led up to M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v. Lupdine LTD

Answer 40

1987
Lupdine provided a liquid to M/S aware that they would be transferring this good to the middle east
During the transfer the buckets melted, the liquid was lost and M/S sued

Question 41

State the year, ruling and point of law in M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment v. Lupdine LTD

Answer 41

1987
The court ruled against Lupdine as they had know the buckets would go to the middle east. Lupdine tried to sue the bucket manufacturer but they also lost this case as the bucket manufacturer wouldn’t have known the use aside from generic use of buckets
The point of law is that when the use of a product is made specific the supplier is required to accommodate to these uses
this s.14 - soga being fit for purpose

Question 42

State the year and events that led up to Slater & Slater v. Finning

Answer 42

1996
Slater bought a specific camshaft for their speedboat
The camshaft wasn’t suitable and wore out due to a boat defect

Question 43

State the year, ruling and point of Law in Slater & Slater v. Finning

Answer 43

1996
The court ruled against Slater as the claimants made specific requests which the seller followed
The point of law here is that the buyer can rely on sellers skill and judgement to a reasonable extent

Question 44

Briefly summarise the Officious Bystander and Business Efficacy tests.

Answer 44

Officious bystander - is used to ascertain if a term not expressly stated is so obvious it should be placed in the contract
Business Efficacy - to introduce non expressly stated terms to make a contract meaningful

Question 45

State the year and events of the MoorCock Case

Answer 45

1889
The claimant moored his ship at the defendants wharf
It became damaged due to the riverbed conditions

Question 46

State the year and the ruling of the Moorcock case

Answer 46

1889
Court ruled in the claimants favour, there was an implied term that the moore should be safe for the ship and it wasn’t explicitly stated otherwise
the court used the business efficacy test
The point of law here is if the business contract makes sense without a term the courts will not imply it