5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III) (view source)
Revision as of 19:28, 24 August 2023
, 19:28, 24 August 2023no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 8, | {{REVIEWED LSLAP | date= July 8, 2023}} | ||
{{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = consumer}} | {{LSLAP Manual TOC|expanded = consumer}} | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
This section also applies to the sale of '''used goods''', as well (s 18(b)). However, there is a lower standard here: the goods must be usable but not perfect. A minor defect does not necessarily render the goods unmerchantable. See <u>''Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd'', [1965] 2 All ER 753 (Eng CA)</u>. | This section also applies to the sale of '''used goods''', as well (s 18(b)). However, there is a lower standard here: the goods must be usable but not perfect. A minor defect does not necessarily render the goods unmerchantable. See <u>''Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd'', [1965] 2 All ER 753 (Eng CA)</u>. | ||
The CRT has sometimes granted compensation for repair costs for used cars that broke down immediately after purchase from a dealer, on the basis that they violated the implied warranty under section 18(b). For example, in the case of ''Sosa v. Reg Midgley Motors Ltd., 2019 BCCRT 487'', the CRT granted the cost of repairs when a serious transmission issue arose just a few days after the sale. The decision was made because the car did not demonstrate durability for a reasonable period. Similarly, in the case of ''Scoretz et al v. Kolenberg Motors Ltd., 2019 BCCRT 549'', the CRT ruled in favour of compensating the Claimant for engine repair expenses, as the engine failed within two months of the purchase. | |||
In any case, where the buyer seeks recovery of the full purchase price based on the implied condition of merchantable quality, they should be cautioned that continued use of the goods in question seriously weakens the argument that the goods are not fit for a particular purpose or are not of merchantable quality. | In any case, where the buyer seeks recovery of the full purchase price based on the implied condition of merchantable quality, they should be cautioned that continued use of the goods in question seriously weakens the argument that the goods are not fit for a particular purpose or are not of merchantable quality. | ||
