Difference between revisions of "Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 88: Line 88:
*ii) the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply;  
*ii) the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply;  


then there is an implied condition that the  goods are necessarily fit for such purpose. An '''exception''' occurs where the contract is for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, in which case there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.  
then there is an implied condition that the  goods are necessarily fit for such purpose. An '''exception''' occurs where the contract is for the sale of a specified article under its patent or trade name, in which case there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.  


To establish a claim under s 18(a) of the SGA, three factors must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities (''Nikka Traders v Gizella Pastry'' 2012 BCSC 1412, para 65):  
To establish a claim under s 18(a) of the SGA, three factors must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities (''Nikka Traders v Gizella Pastry'' 2012 BCSC 1412, para 65):  
Line 95: Line 95:
#the goods are of a description that is in the course of the seller’s business to supply.  
#the goods are of a description that is in the course of the seller’s business to supply.  


Furthermore, the courts have held that the seller need not know the specific purpose for which the buyer wishes to use the goods. Knowledge of a broad purpose is sufficient. For example, in ''Sugiyama v Pilsen'', 2006 BCPC 265, para 71, the court held that section 18(a) provides a warranty that a car is “a reliable vehicle for use in driving in safety on the roads.” However, if the buyer wishes to use the goods for an unusual or peculiar purpose, this must be indicated to the seller.   
Furthermore, the courts have held that the seller need not know the specific purpose for which the buyer wishes to use the goods. Knowledge of a broad purpose is sufficient. For example, in ''Sugiyama v Pilsen'', 2006 BCPC 265, para 71, the court held that section 18(a) provides a warranty that a car is “a reliable vehicle for use in driving in safety on the roads.” However, if the buyer wishes to use the goods for an unusual or peculiar purpose, this must be indicated to the seller.   


The “Patent and Trade Name Exception” is of little effect since the courts have interpreted it narrowly. The issue remains one of reliance, and the trade names exception will apply only where the buyer’s use of the patent or trade name indicates a lack of reliance upon the seller. In other words, the exception only applies where a consumer decides to purchase goods solely because of the trade name of a product without any reliance on representations by the seller. See ''Wharton v Tom Harris Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac'', 2002 BCCA 78, paras 38-39.
The “Patent and Trade Name Exception” is of little effect since the courts have interpreted it narrowly. The issue remains one of reliance, and the trade names exception will apply only where the buyer’s use of the patent or trade name indicates a lack of reliance upon the seller. In other words, the exception only applies where a consumer decides to purchase goods solely because of the trade name of a product without any reliance on representations by the seller. See ''Wharton v Tom Harris Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac'', 2002 BCCA 78, paras 38-39.


==== e) Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality: s 18(b) ====
==== e) Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality: s 18(b) ====
Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Contracts_for_Sale_of_Goods_(11:III)"