FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 634 times | Saved to 346 briefcases
Ingham v Emes (1955) 2 QB 366

Facts:

I got her hair died – years before she had got it died and had an allergic reaction to X in the die. I wanted to die her again, her hairdresser told her she needed to test the die first (court found that I had not told the hairdresser about previous experience w/ die). The test was done, and the portion of skin it was done on was fine, together they had read the instructions and warnings. I had allergic reaction to die.

Issue(s):

Was there the implied warranty of reasonably fit for the purpose?

Ratio:

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.

Analysis:

The implied term of fitness is dependent on proper disclosure by the customer of any relevant peculiarities known to her. There was a reasonable duty on part of buyer to disclose allergy – in order to take benefit of 15(1) depended on her describing her own peculiarities that were known to her before product used.

Holding:

Buyer did not disclose allergy and therefore cannot recover.


Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.