P sued D for the balance of veg glue that was sold to D. D said it was sale by sample and that the glue was not equal to the sample. In alternative D claims they were not merchantable. Determined not sale by sample. D had a chance to see the goods, but only looked at the outside container not the inside of the containers to look at the glue.
Was the glue of merchantable quality? What is meant by inspection?
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.
Sale of goods by description applies to all cases where the buyer has not seen the goods, but relied on the description given by the seller (Varley)
* Here the buyer did not solely rely on the description – he had seen the goods
Buyer must have opportunity to examine the goods
* Buyer had time to inspect the goods and if he did he could have seen the defects easily
Was no implied condition that glue be merchantable – P is entitled to get rest of payment
* If buyer inspects goods and becomes aware of defect in the goods then they may reject the goods, but if buyer (knowing of defect or ought to have known of defect), proceeds to buy the goods nonetheless then they can’t later say goods are unmerchantable due to the defect
* There is no implied condition of merchantability as regards defects that are visible. If you see a defect and still purchase the goods, then you cannot complain about it. Latent and hidden defects are an exception to this rule