• Print
  • Commercial Law accounts for 12 out of 812 casebriefs.

Style of causeRatio

Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill, [1972] Ac 441

For sale by description, it is only a question of whether the goods as described were delivered. Description does not necessarily relate to quality

Buyer need only partially rely on the sellers skill or judgement. The fitness-for-purpose rule is subject to the idiosyncratic exception.
**The Idiosyncratic Exception: If the seller could show that the mink possessed an idiosyncrasy which made the food unsuitable but it would suitable for other animals or birds, then there would be no liability.

Butterworth v Kingsway Motors, [1954] 2 All ER 694

Where seller has breached condition of title the buyer is entitled to recover the price w/o any allowance being made for the use of the goods

Charles Rickards Ltd v Oppenheim, [1950] All ER 420

If you waive a date of delivery, you are still entitled to give reasonable notice of a new date of delivery (making time again of the essence)
Notice must be reasonable and what is reasonable depends on:
**Time to get job done,
**Had buyer been pressing for delivery,
**Had buyer given previous notices for delivery
**Is it especially imp that the buyer get delivery by certain date,
**In original K was the time of delivery viewed as a matter of essence (if so then should be able to return to that position)
Reasonableness of notice is judged at time it is given

Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk, [1969] 2 AC 31

Under SGA s. 15(2), merchantable quality means nothing more than the product is commercially saleable.
s.15(2) is more general of (2) and (1). Depending on description contained in K it may be that only 1 quality of goods meets description, or it may mean that there are several qualities of goods that meet the description, in which case the lowest quality commonly sold is what is meant by merchantable quality

If a particular purpose is made known, that is sufficient to raise the inference that the buyer relies (partial reliance is sufficient) on the seller’s skill and judgment unless there is something to displace the inference
**There is no need for a buyer formally to “make known” that which is already known
**Reliance on the part of the buyer is assumed where the seller knows the buyer has a particular purpose.

Helby v Matthews, [1895] AC 471

Where goods are leased in a genuine lease arrangement then they are not subject to the SGA

Ingham v Emes (1955) 2 QB 366

The seller’s liability for fitness for use may be limited where the buyer does not give notice of their particular purpose, special sensitivities or past harm with the product.

International Business Machines v Scherban, [1925] 1 DLR 864

Merchantability means the buyer is entitled to receive the goods in perfect condition allowing the buyer to resell the goods. Minor defects may render goods unmerchantable.

Niblett v Confectioners' Material, [1921] 3 KB 387

Right to sell = seller has power to vest full and complete rights over the goods in the buyer. Right of quiet enjoyment can be interfered with if there is an injunction on the goods

Reardon Smith Line v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen, [1976] 1 WLR 989

A buyer can only reject goods where they fail to conform to description in that they are a “different kind of goods” than what the buyer contracted to buy.

Rowland v Divall, [1922] R 2746.

Where seller has breached condition of title the buyer is entitled to recover the price w/o any allowance being made for the use of the goods
When seller has no right to sell the goods in the 1st place, the buyer retains the right to reject goods at a later date then normal (treat as breach of condition not just breach of warranty)

Sumner v Webb, [1922] 1 KB 55

If the reason one cannot sell the goods is simply a legal regulation, then the goods are still merchantable. Merchantable quality makes no claim with respect to legal title. The meaning is restricted to whether the goods match the contract.

Thornett v Beers, [1919] 1 KB 486

If you have plenty of time to inspect and you don’t, you will be held to have done a reasonable inspection and to have discovered the defects that would have been discovered in a reasonable inspection
**If the buyer has examined the goods, there is no implied condition as regards to defects. The buyer who conducts only a cursory inspection does so at his own risk.