Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939): A Summary

Case name & citation: Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685

Jurisdiction: England, UK

Year of the case: 1939

Area of law: Implied Term as to fitness for a particular purpose

What is the case about?

The case of Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939) deals with a situation where a seller is sought to be held liable for the violation of Section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Facts of the case (Griffiths v Peter Conway)

The claimant purchased from the defendants a Harris tweed coat. The purchase was made without disclosing that she had particularly sensitive skin. After a brief period of wearing the coat, she developed dermatitis.

The claimant filed a lawsuit against the defendant sellers arguing that she bought the coat with the expectation that it would meet her needs and be safe for her to wear.

Issue raised

Is it possible that the seller is responsible for the skin damage that was sustained by the plaintiff as a result of wearing the coat?

Judgment of the Court in Griffiths v Peter Conway

The claimant’s attempt to claim damages under Section 14(3) was unsuccessful. It was demonstrated that a person with normal skin would not have been affected by the coat. The fact that the claimant had unusually sensitive skin had not been brought to the attention of the defendants by the claimant.

Governing section behind the decision

Section 14(3) says that if the seller sells goods as part of a business and the buyer informs the seller, either directly or by implication, what the goods will be used for, there is an implied condition that the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose unless it can be shown that the buyer did not rely on the seller’s skill and judgment, or that it would be unreasonable for him to do so.

If the buyer specifies the particular purpose for which he requires the goods (for example, shoes suitable for running in a marathon), then the goods must be suitable for the stated purpose in order to satisfy the requirements of the buyer.

When the buyer purchases goods for only one typical reason, he makes his purpose known by implication rather than explicitly stating it. For example, food must be safe for consumption, and clothing must be appropriate for use.

But it is up to the buyer to make sure that the seller is made aware of any specific requirements that they may have.

Why was Section 14(3) not resorted to?

In the given case, the Court determined that the defendant sellers were not aware of the plaintiff’s unusually sensitive skin. Furthermore, the defendants could not be expected to assume the existence of such skin, and the plaintiff made no mention of it either. Neither of these two factors helped the plaintiff’s case. The coat would not have had an impact on other individuals. Due to the fact that these factors were taken into consideration, the judge came to the conclusion that the seller had not violated subsection 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

The legal point highlighted in “Griffiths v Peter Conway”

If there are special requirements regarding the use of the goods, they must be made known.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

Hope you found this useful.

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987): A Case Summary

Case name & citation: Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] QB 933

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Decided on: 05 November 1986

The bench of judges: Lord Justice Mustill, Lord Justice Woolf, Sir Edward Eveleigh

Area of law: Implied condition as to the quality of goods

What is the case about?

This case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987) deals with the condition of merchantable quality in a contract of sale of goods. It assesses that a product is of merchantable quality if it meets the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory.

Facts of the case (Rogers v Parish)

The claimants spent £16,000 on the purchase of a brand-new Range Rover. After a few weeks of using the vehicle in a manner that was not satisfactory, the claimants decided to return it to the dealers and take another Range Rover as a replacement vehicle. Unfortunately, the performance of the second vehicle did not significantly improve on that of the first.

Six months after the vehicle was delivered, the engine began to misfire at all road speeds, and the gearbox began to make an excessive amount of noise. In addition to that, there were significant flaws in the bodywork. The claimants informed the dealers of their decision to reject the vehicle.

They sought to reject it under Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 because it did not meet the requirements for merchantable quality.

Issue that arose

Were the claimants entitled to reject the car on grounds of merchantable quality?

Judgment of the Court in Rogers v Parish

The Court of Appeal concluded that the suppliers violated the implied term concerning the quality of their products. The judge ruled that the definition of “merchantability” required taking into account not only whether or not the car was capable of travelling from point A to point B in a secure manner, but also the buyer’s reasonable expectations of being able to do so with an appropriate level of comfort, ease of handling, and reliability, as well as an appropriate level of pride in the vehicle’s appearance.

According to the Court, the buyer’s reasonable expectations of a new Range Rover priced at £16,000 had not been met in this case. The claimants didn’t get what they paid for.

Hence, the decision was taken in favor of the claimants (the buyer).

Ratio decidendi (the rationale for the decision)

In the given case, it turned out that the vehicle had a faulty engine, gearbox, and bodywork; all these were below the standard that is normally expected of a vehicle costing that much. It was decided that the vehicle did not have a quality that could render it merchantable. Even though it could be driven and the damage could be repaired, this did not fulfill the requirements of Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This requirement could only be met if the vehicle was of a standard that was reasonable for a vehicle of its kind.

Moreover, the Court of Appeal ruled that the buyer had a legal right to reject because the expectations of someone who bought a Range Rover were significantly higher than those of someone who bought an ordinary car.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

Hope you found this useful.

Stevenson v Rogers (1999): A Case Summary

Case name & citation: Stevenson v Rogers (1999) 1 All ER 613

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1999

Area of law: Implied condition as to the quality of goods

What is the case about?

Stevenson v Rogers (1999) talks about the liability of a seller to ensure that the goods supplied are of satisfactory quality.

In this case, the English Court of Appeal reviewed the meaning of the words “a seller selling goods in the course of a business” in Section 14.

Facts of the case (Stevenson v Rogers)

The seller, a fisherman with more than 20 years of experience in the business, listed his trawler, Jelle, on the market since he was replacing it with a brand-new boat. Due to Jelle’s failure to meet the standard of satisfactory quality, the buyer filed a lawsuit under Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979.

The seller claimed that Section 14(2) did not apply because this was a private sale. He didn’t deal in used trawlers; that was not his line of work. He contended that he did not engage in the business of purchasing and selling fishing boats; rather, capturing fish and selling them was his primary source of income.

Issue raised

Was the seller liable for breach of Section 14?

Judgment of the Court in Stevenson v Rogers

The Court of Appeal disagreed with the seller’s contention, recognizing that because this sale was closely related to the seller’s commercial activities, it should be classified as a business sale covered by Section 14(2).

Given that it appeared that the requirement of satisfactory quality had been violated, the buyer had the right to question the seller under Section 14.

Therefore, it was held that the sale was made in the normal course of business and the defendant was responsible for ensuring that the boat was of satisfactory quality.

Governing section behind the decision

Section 14 is an implicit term in a contract of sale that most sellers are likely to violate. A seller of goods can violate Section 14 in a variety of ways. If the items delivered are not of adequate quality or are not suited for the customer’s needs and purpose, the buyer may file a claim against the seller.

Only if the seller is selling the goods in the course of his business will the protection given to buyers by Section 14 be applicable. As a result, Section 14 will not provide protection to a buyer who purchases products from a private vendor. Consequently, the maxim of caveat emptor, which means “let the buyer beware,” is the best way to describe the general norm for private sales.

Or, to put it another way, the law does not exist to safeguard a buyer in a private sale from the repercussions of striking a bad deal due to his own foolishness or his inability to adequately question the seller regarding the suitability or condition of the goods.

Who will be covered by Section 14?

The manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and dealers in new or used goods are the only businesses that are likely to be affected by the implied conditions contained in Section 14. In addition, a commercial vendor will not be able to excuse himself from complying with the requirements of Section 14 by claiming that he does not usually supply or deal in the type of goods in question.

Therefore, if the buyer ordered a specific brand of goods from a business seller who had never sold these before, he would have a claim against the seller under Section 14 if the goods were not fit for their purpose or were defective in some way. In this scenario, the seller would be held liable for the buyer’s damages.

The seller’s arguments that the goods delivered were not in the normal course of his business would likely be disregarded by the Courts as irrelevant. The case of Stevenson v Rogers (1999) is a good example of this situation. The sale of the trawler by the seller was not considered to be a private sale and it was held to be a sale in the normal course of business.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd (1990)

Case name & citation: Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 737; [1991] 1 QB 564

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England & Wales

Decided on: 15 December 1989

The bench of judges: Lord Justice Slade, Lord Justice NourseandLord Justice Stuart-Smith

Area of law: Implied condition in a sale by description

What is the case about?

This case discusses that there can’t be a sale by description if the buyer has not relied on the seller’s description.

Facts of the case (Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd)

The defendant sold the claimant an artwork that turned out to be a forgery. The defendant thought the painting was by Gabriele Munter (an artist of the German Expressionist school) because he had seen it as being attributed to Munter in an auction catalog.

While making the sale and during discussions with the claimant, he described the artwork as that of Munter’s, although making it clear that he was unfamiliar with Munter’s work and had very little knowledge of German Expressionist art. The claimant examined the painting and determined that it was genuine although he also did not have all the necessary expertise. He decided to purchase it. The purchase was made for £6,000.

In the defendant’s invoice, the painting was described as Munter’s. When the claimant realized the painting was fake, he filed a lawsuit under Section 13(1) to get his money back for the purchase.

The claimant additionally claimed that the painting was not of merchantable quality in accordance with Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act of 1979.

Issue raised

Was there a sale by description?

As the painting was not an original work by Munter, could the claimant recover the purchase price?

Judgment of the Court in Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd

The Court of Appeal determined that the defendant had made it obvious that his attribution could not be relied upon, and that the claimant should have used his own knowledge and discretion. A contract will not be considered a sale by description just because the seller has made a statement regarding the goods. The purchaser must demonstrate that the description influenced their purchase decision. Because the claimant was unable to demonstrate this, his action was dismissed.

Further, as regards the contention relating to Section 14, the Court held that the misattribution did not impair the quality of the painting and thus, it could not be considered unmerchantable.

The relevant rule governing the case

As per Section 13(1), where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description.

If the buyer has not seen the goods before purchasing them (for example, through a mail order catalog or the Internet), clearly there is a sale by description. But sometimes even if the buyer has seen the goods and possibly picked them personally, it may still be a sale by description if he has relied to some extent on a description from the seller.

Moreover, if the buyer has forgotten about the description by the time he actually buys the items, or if he does not believe what he has been told and verifies the specifics for himself, he may lose the protection of Section 13 since he has not relied on the description.

Conclusion

In the given case, the claimant inspected the painting himself (or through his team) before agreeing to purchase and the defendant made it clear that he lacked expertise in German Expressionist art. Therefore, the sale could not be treated as a sale by description. The claimant did not rely on the description.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co (1921)

Case name & citation: Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co [1921] 2 KB 519

Court and jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1921

Area of law: Implied condition in a sale by description

What is the case about?

The basic rule under the classical law of contract is that performance must be exact and precise and the Courts have at times applied this requirement very strictly. The case of Moore & Co and Landauer & Co is a good example of this from the Sale of Goods Act.

Facts of the case (Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co)

The claimants agreed to provide 3,000 tins of Australian canned fruit, which were to be packaged in cases of 30 tins each. When the goods were delivered, it was found that around half of the order had been packed in cases containing 24 tins.

Even though the correct quantity had been supplied (i.e., all 3,000 tins agreed), the defendants chose to reject the entire shipment.

Issue that was raised

Was this a sale by description?

Since tins were delivered in different amounts than those stated in the contract, could the contract be repudiated on this ground?

Judgment of the Court in Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co

It was determined that this was a sale by description under Section 13 and that because the goods did not match the description, the defendants had the right to cancel the contract.

Even though the market value was not affected and there was no loss to the defendants, the Court of Appeal held that there was still a breach of Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

What does Section 13 say?

As per Section 13(1), where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied condition that the goods will correspond with the description.

Size, number, weight, ingredients, origin, and even how the goods are to be packaged may all be covered in the description of the goods. The buyer will be allowed to reject the goods if there is even the slightest deviation from the specifications. Because this shall breach a condition of the contract (that is goods must correspond with the description).

A different view

The ruling given in this case appears to be at odds with the widely accepted notion that the law should not get involved in unimportant details. In Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-Tangen (1976), Lord Wilberforce questioned the correctness of Moore and Landauer’s decision and recommended that it should be re-evaluated by the House of Lords.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

A Quick Summary of Priest v Last (1903) Case

Case name & citation: Priest v Last [1903] 2 K.B. 148

Court and jurisdiction: The Court of Appeal, England & Wales

Year of the case: 1903

Area of law: Implied condition as to the fitness of use

What is the case about?

This is an English case law that throws light on the responsibility of a seller to ensure that the goods supplied are fit for use.

Facts of the case (Priest v Last)

The plaintiff purchased a hot water bottle from the defendant who was a chemist. The bottle was used by the plaintiff’s wife, and on the fifth usage, it burst, thereby scalding her. The buyer filed a claim for violation of Section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The seller contended that the buyer had not specified the purpose for which the hot water bottle was to be utilized.

Issue that arose in this case

Was there a breach of the implied condition as to fitness?

The decision of the Court in Priest v Last

According to the defendant, Priest did not specify the purpose for which he required the hot water bottle. However, due to the fact that hot water bottles are purchased with a specific use in mind, the Court dismissed this argument.

Evidence showed that the hot water bottle was deemed unfit for its “obvious and common purpose” and therefore was not merchantable.

Hence, the seller was held liable for damages since the implied condition as to fitness was not met in this case. Further, the buyer relied on the skill and judgement of the seller.

Governing rule behind the decision

Goods bought must be reasonably fit for the particular purpose for which they have been bought. This (purpose) may be made known by the buyer either expressly or by implication.

If the goods serve only one basic purpose, then the notification by the buyer of the reason for which he purchases the goods shall be implied from such purchase.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods:

Godley v Perry (1960): A Quick Summary

Case name & citation: Godley v Perry [1960] 1 WLR 9; [1960] 1 All ER 36 (Q.B.D.)

Court and jurisdiction: Queen’s Bench Division, England and Wales

Year of the case: 1960

Area of law: Implied condition (bulk should correspond to sample)

What is the case about?

This case of Godley v Perry illustrates an example of implied conditions in a contract of sale by sample.

Facts of the case (Godley v Perry)

A plastic toy catapult was purchased by the claimant, a six-year-old child, from Perry, the first defendant, who managed a newsagent shop. In the process of using the catapult, the claimant’s eye was lost. He filed a lawsuit against Perry for violating the implied terms of Section 14(2) and (3).

Perry had purchased the catapults from a wholesaler on the basis of a sample. He had pulled back the elastic on the sample catapult to test it, but no flaw had been discovered. Perry then brought the wholesaler into the proceedings, claiming a violation of the terms of Section 15.

The wholesaler had purchased his stock of catapults through a sample from another wholesaler, who had procured the catapults from Hong Kong. The first wholesaler tried to bring the second wholesaler into action, alleging a similar violation of Section 15.

Issues raised

Was there a breach of Sections 14 and 15?

Could the claimant recover damages from Perry?

Could the first wholesaler and the second wholesaler be held liable?

Governing rules of law

Section 14(2) and (3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 state that in every contract of sale of goods in the course of business, the goods should be of satisfactory quality and that they must be fit for a particular purpose for which they are being bought.

In addition, Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 deals with the implied condition in a contract for sale by sample. When products are purchased in bulk and the buyer has only tested or inspected a small sample of those goods, the seller is required to ensure that each item in the bulk is of the same quality as the sample that was tested or examined. The seller must ensure that the products will be free from any defect which would not be apparent on a reasonable examination of the sample.

Judgement of the Court in Godley v Perry

It was determined that the claimant could obtain damages from the first defendant for breach of Section 14 because the catapult was not of merchantable quality or suitable for the use for which it had been purchased.

Secondly, the Court held that the first defendant could claim damages from the first wholesaler, who in turn could recover the damages from the second wholesaler, in both situations because there had been a breach of Section 15, which was implied in the relevant contract. The defect in the goods could not be found by a fair examination of the sample.

List of references:

You might also like:

More from sale of goods: