The sale of goods is the most common commercial transaction and the quality and utility of goods in contracts of sale is an important issue to anyone who is involved in sale or purchase of goods on a regular basis. The Common Law decisions which originally covered quality of goods were seen as being inadequate in the face of fast changing economy (Griffiths, 1996). Consequently UK legislation was introduced to modernize the law resulting in a statute; the Sale of Goods Act 1979 which aims to control the relationship between sellers and buyers. This act applies to all contracts ‘by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration called the price' (S2(1) of SOGA 1979) where ‘goods' is defined as ‘all corporeal moveables except money' (S61(1) of SOGA 1979). The major provisions of this Act are stated to be implied terms contained in Sections 12 to 15 that cover title, sales by description, satisfactory quality, fitness for purpose and sale by sample. Implied terms, which seek to protect the buyer of goods, are the conditions in a contract of sale which are so obvious that the seller does not need to write them in the contract (Grier, 2006). For instance, when a person buys a bottle of water, it is apparent that the store owns it but that there will be a transfer of ownership (title) to the buyer. In this essay, we will particularly focus on two of these implied terms cited in Sections 13 & 14 of the 1979 Act regarding the matter of description and satisfactory quality.
[...] Peter Conway [1939], wherein since the buyer did not mentioned her abnormally sensitive skin, she lost the case (Dobson & Stokes, 2008). Appearance and finish, freedom from minor defects, safety and durability are also factors determining the ‘satisfatory quality' of goods. For any breach of these conditions, the buyer is entitled to reject the good considered as being of ‘unsatisfactory quality' (Griffiths, 1996). Liability under S14 is strict and even if the seller is not directly reponsible for the ‘satisfactory quality' of the goods, he/she will nonetheless be held liable for that quality and any direct consequential losses to the purchaser of the product (Griffiths, 1996) no matter whether the seller has done everything reasonable to avoid the breach (Busby et al., 2006). [...]
[...] The relative importance of these different characteristics depends upon whether the vehicle is new and which market it is to be aimed at (Dobson & Stokes, 2008). The court might also consider the public statements made by the seller or manufacturer about specific characteristics of the goods except if the seller can prove that the buyer did not get influenced by the statements for the purchase and/or if the seller was not aware of these statements made by the manufacturer. [...]
[...] The court, to judge a case, takes into consideration every characteristic of the implied terms mentioned in Section 13 and 14 and explained above. However, the court might consider a case by case scenario and take other factors into account to determine whether the seller is liable. Reference List Ashington Riggeries Ltd v. Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] Beatle v. Taylor [1967] Busby, N. e. (2006). Scots Law: A Student Guide (3rd Edition ed.). Glasgow: M&A Thomson Litho Ltd. Dobson, P. [...]
[...] [1899] Lee, C. (2009, March 14). Sales by description . Commercial Law Website: http://uolcommlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/chapter-2-conformance- with-description.html [accessed on 07 February 2012] Office of Fair Trading Website: http://www.oft.gov.uk/ [accessed on 05 February 2012] Priest v. Last [1903] Reardon Smith Lines v. Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] Rogers v. Parish Ltd. [1987] Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA 1979) Teheran-Europe v. [...]
[...] A good example for the latter is in Reardon Smith Lines v. Yngvar Hansen-Tangen [1976] where the buyer ordered a ship described in the contract as being from Osaka Zosen shipyard although the ship was built in another yard; however it conformed to the buyer's specifications. The Court held that the statement about the shipyard was not a part of the description of the product, in this condition, the buyer could not reject it (Griffiths, 1996). As liability under S13 is strict, the court will expressly need a proof that the description was influential to the buyer in the sale and that the buyer relied upon this description to make the purchase decision as in Harlingdon & Leinster Ltd. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
