FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 830 times | Saved to 467 briefcases
Ingham v Emes (1955) 2 QB 366


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.


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


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.


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.


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.