Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
This section only applies to a sale by description (s.18(b)). This is usually not a problem since most sales are by description, except where the buyer is clearly buying a particular item on the basis of qualities known to them apart from any representations (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a) | d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer's Purpose: s 18(a)]] above). | This section only applies to a sale by description (s.18(b)). This is usually not a problem since most sales are by description, except where the buyer is clearly buying a particular item on the basis of qualities known to them apart from any representations (see [[{{PAGENAME}}#d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a) | d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer's Purpose: s 18(a)]] above). | ||
===== (3) Seller who Deals in Goods of that Description ===== | |||
In addition to requiring that the sale be by description, s 18(b) also requires that the seller must “deal in goods of that description.” In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc927/2011bcsc927.html?autocompleteStr=hartmann%20v%20mc&autocompletePos=1 Hartmann v McKerness, 2011 BCSC 927], a seller sold a watch by description over eBay and was sued for violating the implied condition of merchantability in s 18(b). In paragraphs 43-47, the BC Supreme Court held that the seller was not one “who dealt in goods of that description” for the purpose of 18(b), as he did not specialize in watches, but rather sold a large variety of goods. | In addition to requiring that the sale be by description, s 18(b) also requires that the seller must “deal in goods of that description.” In [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2011/2011bcsc927/2011bcsc927.html?autocompleteStr=hartmann%20v%20mc&autocompletePos=1 Hartmann v McKerness, 2011 BCSC 927], a seller sold a watch by description over eBay and was sued for violating the implied condition of merchantability in s 18(b). In paragraphs 43-47, the BC Supreme Court held that the seller was not one “who dealt in goods of that description” for the purpose of 18(b), as he did not specialize in watches, but rather sold a large variety of goods. | ||