The exchange of barter does not come under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 because there is no price. Instead the caveat emptor rule applies in regards to: immediately apparent defects; defects which an available inspection would have detected; and where the thing works for a reasonable time before the default. (Case said 3 weeks for a motor car)
Ballantyne v Durant 1983
Sale of Goods
The passing of property need to be the essence of the parties' contract or else it is not a Sale of Goods contract. In this case the supreme court held that as the buyer had the right to consume all, or part, of fuel without acquiring the property in it, this was a sui generis contract and not subject to the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC v OW Bunker Malta Ltd
Only purely private sales are not covered by the implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979
Stevenson v Rogers 1999
Incorrect instructions supplied with goods can render otherwise valid the goods defective. Here instructions for a weedkiller rendered the weedkiller ineffective if followed. This was not considered to comply with the requirements under Sale of Goods Act 1979 - not fit for purpose or safe
Wormell v R H M Agricultural (East) Ltd
Foreign object supplied accidentally with the goods can render the whole goods defective if it is defective. Here a detonator was supplied with some fuel and when lit in a home fire there was an exposition and the goods were deemed to be of an unsatisfactory quality. This is a contradiction of the earlier Scottish case Duke v Jackson 1921 which says the exact opposite in saying it didn't affect the quality of the goods.
Wilson v Rickett, Cockerell and Co.
Goods can still be defective if they do not meet the statutory implied terms, even if the contractual obligations are fulfilled
Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd
If you could have inspected the goods prior to purchase, there is no recourse against any defect which would have been apparent during the inspection. Here it was barrels of glue which the buyer said they did not want to inspect.
Thornett & Fehr v Beers & Son
Definition of merchantable quality depends on the circumstances and the item. No system of mass production could be perfect (overruled). Cosmetic factors must take into account the quality of the item you are buying; a rolls royce buyer puts up with less than others. Here a car could never reach the standard.
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green)
Section 14(2) merchantable quality requires the purchaser's reasonable expectations and the quality of the goods to be considered. Buyer could not have reasonably expected their car to have been submerged in water for 24 hours prior to purchase so it didn't matter that it had dried out - breach.
Shine v General Guarantee Corporation
Implied warranty that goods be fit for purpose for a reasonable time after delivery, so long as there is fair wear and tear only. Here a towing hitch broke and caused an accident in a breach of warranty.
Lambert v Lewis
Implied warranty that they need to be fit for purpose for a reasonable time is based on condition of goods. Gear box of car with age and miles went after a few weeks. No recourse as optional 3 month warranty and couldn't reasonably expect this car to last.
Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre
Purposes which are reasonably expected don't need to be specified. Here clothing could reasonably be expected to be worn and this was a breach of fitness for particular and common purpose.
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
If time is of the essence of a contract for the sale of goods and, on the lapse of the stipulated time, the buyer continues to press for delivery, he has a right to give notice fixing a reasonable time for delivery, thus making time again of the essence of the contract.
Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim
There was a wrongful interference with the computer system after delivery and installation which was a breach of the implied term under s12(2)(b) SoGA 1979
Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd
the test for description is about what the buyer could fairly and reasonably refuse to accept on the ground that their failure to correspond with that part of what was said about them in the contract makes them goods of a different kind from those he had agreed to buy. Here it was that the herring meal was contaminated so it was a breach under section 14(2) but not 13.
Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill Ltd
选择要在Apple App Store上查看的Topgrade应用程序。