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

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.

There is an '''exception''' where the buyer has examined the goods; then, there is no condition of merchantable quality to the extent that the examination ought to have revealed the defect. However, if the average person would not have been able to spot the defect, the condition of merchantability remains. Hence, it must be determined: 1) whether the buyer <u>examined</u> the goods, and 2) whether the defects ought to have been <u>revealed</u> by the examination.