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

From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 105: Line 105:
The concept of merchantable quality is difficult to define. A commonly used test, the '''price abatement''' test, asks whether a reasonable buyer, informed of the actual quality of the goods, would buy the goods without a substantial abatement of price (''B.S. Brown & Son v Craiks Ltd.'', [1970] 1 All ER 823 (HL)). If the informed reasonable buyer would not buy without a substantial abatement of price, unmerchantable  quality is inferred, and repudiation may be available.
The concept of merchantable quality is difficult to define. A commonly used test, the '''price abatement''' test, asks whether a reasonable buyer, informed of the actual quality of the goods, would buy the goods without a substantial abatement of price (''B.S. Brown & Son v Craiks Ltd.'', [1970] 1 All ER 823 (HL)). If the informed reasonable buyer would not buy without a substantial abatement of price, unmerchantable  quality is inferred, and repudiation may be available.


Any damage to goods beyond the de minimus range, may be said to render the goods of unmerchantable quality (IBM v Shcherban, [1925] 1 DLR 864 (Sask CA)). Section 18(b) applies to the sale of used goods as well. 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 Bartlettv Sidney Marcus Ltd.,[1965] 2 All ER 753 (CA). In any case, where the buyer seeks recovery of the full purchase price based on the implied condition of merchantable quality, he or she 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. (2)Sale by Description Section 18(b) only applies to a sale by description. 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 him apart from any representations. (3)Seller who Deals in Goods of that Description In addition to requiring that the sale be by description, section 18(b) also requires that the seller must “deal in goods of that description.”  In Hartman 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 section 18(b). In paragraphs 43-47, the BC Supreme Court held that the eBay seller was not a seller “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. (4)Effect of Examination by the Buyer If the buyer examines the goods, there is no condition of merchantable quality for defects that the examination ought to have revealed. However, if the average person would not have been able to spot the defect during the exam, the condition of merchantability remains. Hence,  it must be determined: 1) whether the buyer examined the goods, and 2) whether the defects ought to have been revealed by the exam. There is  no obligation on the buyer to make a reasonable examination, or even any examination. (5)Implied Condition of Reasonable Durability The goods must be durable for a reasonable period of time (s 18(c)). f)Implied Conditions in Sales by Sample: s 19 For a contract to be a sale by sample, there must be “an express or implied term in the contract to that effect” (s 19(1)).
Any damage to goods beyond the de minimus range, may be said to render the goods of unmerchantable quality (''IBM v Shcherban'', [1925] 1 DLR 864 (Sask CA)).  
 
Section 18(b) applies to the sale of used goods as well. 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 ''Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd.'',[1965] 2 All ER 753 (CA).  
 
In any case, where the buyer seeks recovery of the full purchase price based on the implied condition of merchantable quality, he or she 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.  
 
===== (2) Sale by Description =====
 
Section 18(b) only applies to a sale by description. 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 him apart from any representations.  
 
===== (3) Seller who Deals in Goods of that Description =====
 
In addition to requiring that the sale be by description, section 18(b) also requires that the seller must “deal in goods of that description.”  In ''Hartman 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 section 18(b). In paragraphs 43-47, the BC Supreme Court held that the eBay seller was not a seller “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.  
 
===== (4) Effect of Examination by the Buyer =====
 
If the buyer examines the goods, there is no condition of merchantable quality for defects that the examination ought to have revealed. However, if the average person would not have been able to spot the defect during the exam, the condition of merchantability remains. Hence,  it must be determined: 1) whether the buyer examined the goods, and 2) whether the defects ought to have been revealed by the exam. There is  no obligation on the buyer to make a reasonable examination, or even any examination.  
 
===== (5) Implied Condition of Reasonable Durability =====
 
The goods must be durable for a reasonable period of time (s 18(c)).  
 
==== f) Implied Conditions in Sales by Sample: s 19 ====
 
For a contract to be a sale by sample, there must be “an express or implied term in the contract to that effect” (s 19(1)).
 
The elements of a sale by sample are set out in s 19(2):
*i) an implied condition that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality;
*ii) an implied condition that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample; and
*iii) an implied condition that the goods are free from defects rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable  examination of the sample.
 
The last condition can only be relied upon where the defect would not have been apparent on a hypothetical reasonable examination. Contrast  this with the s 18(b) condition of merchantability for sales by description, where the buyer’s '''actual''' examination is considered.
 
=== 2. Exemption from Implied Contractual Terms ===
 
==== a) Private Seller ====
 
Based on section 20, Private sellers or lessors, as opposed to retail sellers or lessors, can explicitly exempt themselves from ss 17, 18, and 19. A retail sale is defined as one in the “ordinary course of the sellor or lessor’s business.” This is subject to the ''contra proferentum''  rule that such a clause, if ambiguous, is read strictly against the person relying on it. 
 
==== b) Commercial Seller ====
 
Under s 20 of the ''SGA'', retailers of '''new goods''' cannot exempt themselves from the implied terms in ss 16 – 19, and any clause that attempts  to do so is void, subject to the exceptions listed below. A seller who is making a retail sale in the ordinary course of business can only expressly waive ss 16 – 19 if:
 
*i) the goods are used (except s 16, which also applies to used goods);
*ii) the purchaser, even a private individual, intends to resell the goods;
*iii) the lease is to a lessee for the purpose of subletting the goods;
*iv) the purchaser intends to use the goods primarily for business;
*v) the purchaser is a corporation or commercial enterprise; or
*vi) the seller is a trustee in bankruptcy, a liquidator, or a sheriff. Where a commercial dealer includes a disclaimer clause exempting the  transaction from the provisions in ss 16 – 19, the clause is void, unless one of the exceptions applies.
 
=== 3. Buyer’s Lien ===
 
Amendments to the ''SGA'' in 1994 created the buyer’s lien, which gives priority to a consumer who has paid some or all of the purchase price  of the goods, but has not taken possession, before the seller goes into receivership or bankruptcy.  


next 11-12
next 11-12

Revision as of 15:43, 15 June 2016



Generally, consumers have no right to return goods or cancel a contract simply because they decide the goods are no longer wanted or needed. However, it is often only after the goods are purchased that damages or defects are discovered. In such cases, a purchaser may have a remedy if it can be shown that a term of the contract has been breached. It may also be the case that the business has a refund policy of which the consumer can take advantage.

This section outlines the protection that consumers have against the problems that may occur after a purchase has been made. To understand one’s legal rights, it is necessary to know the differences between terms, representations, and mere puffs.

A. Identifying and Classifying the Terms of a Contract

A term of the contract is a promise made by the manufacturer or seller regarding the character or quality of an article. It can be either written or oral. Written terms will generally be straightforward to identify. Whether an oral statement can be properly considered a term may be less obvious. Not everything said by the seller will be a term of the contract. To be a term, the statement must be a specific promise that makes up part of the contract.

If a statement is not a term, it will be either a representation or a puff. A representation is a material statement of fact made to induce the other party to enter the contract. A puff is vague sales talk not meant to have any legal effect. For example, a statement that, “This is a wonderful car,” would be a puff.

If a statement is a term of the contract, it can be a condition, warranty, or innominate term. A well-drafted contract will characterize particular terms as conditions or warranties, though the wording used in the contract will not always be determinative. The difference between the three types of terms is as follows:

1. Condition

A condition is a term that is so essential to the agreement that its breach is considered to be a substantial failure to perform the contract. A breach of a condition is said to go to the root of the contract. In other words, the breach is such that it deprives the innocent party of “substantially the whole benefit” of the contract. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd, [1962] 1 All ER 474 at 489. Breach of condition entitles the buyer to terminate any further obligations under the contract and sue for damages. The aggrieved party, if aware of the impending breach, could accept the repudiation of the other party and terminate the contract, ending all future obligations except for the damages that stem from non-performance. Or, the aggrieved party could not accept the repudiation, and may wait for the future breach to occur before pursuing damages (e.g., if he or she thinks that there is still a chance that the contract will be performed).

2. Warranty

A warranty is a term of the contract that is not so essential. A warranty must be performed, but its breach is not considered to go to the root of the contract. This meaning of warranty should not be confused with other uses of the word such as in “one-year maintenance warranty”. When a warranty is breached, the innocent party must continue to perform its own obligations under the contract but can sue for damages.

3. Innominate Terms

Innominate terms arise out of the common law, but unlike conditions and warranties, they are not mentioned in the SGA. An innominate term is one that may be treated as either a condition or a warranty, depending on how severe the consequences of a breach turn out to be. Whether an innominate term is a condition or a warranty is for a judge to decide. Note that the SGA specifies whether certain terms are conditions or warranties.

B. Determining if the Sale of Goods Act Governs the Contract

The SGA applies to transactions that can be characterized as contracts for the sale of goods. Any transaction that is not for the sale of goods does not receive the benefit of the SGA. Hence, the subject matter of the transaction must be goods and the essential elements of a contract must also be present.

1. Goods

Goods include all personal chattels, other than “things in action” (e.g. cheques, insurance policies, money). Things attached to real property, which the parties agree to sever before sale, or under the contract of sale, are included (s. 1). Note that registration in the Land Title Office may be advisable to avoid possible characterization of the goods as real property or fixtures, so that the SGA may apply to the transaction.

According to ss 1 and 9, the SGA covers existing and future goods. Future goods are goods to be manufactured or acquired by the seller after the making of the contract of sale.

According to ss 1 and 6(1), general property or title in the goods must pass – not merely a special property or interest. Thus, for example, a contract of bailment is not covered.

Contracts for skill and labour alone are not contracts for the sale of goods, so the SGA does not apply to them. However, if a contract is for labour and materials, then the SGA could apply to the materials (e.g. a contract to paint a house with paint supplied by the contractor).

2. Contract of Sale

According to s 6(6) of the SGA, a contract of sale includes an agreement to sell as well as a sale. Thus the definition covers conditional sales.

Section 8 provides that the contract may be either written or oral.

According to s 6(1), the SGA applies only where the purchaser agrees to buy goods with money as consideration. Hence gifts, barters, or exchanges are not subject to the SGA’s implied conditions and warranties. However, a court may avoid this result by finding two separate contracts rather than a barter, as long as the consideration, whether money or goods, has its value measured in monetary terms: see Messenger . Green, [1937] 2 DLR 26 (NSSC). Thus, if a total price is attached, there will be a sale, even if payment is in goods.

3. Lease Contracts

The SGA applies to lease contracts if the goods are leased for personal, family or household purposes.

C. Provisions of the Sale of Goods Act

Sections 16 – 19 of the SGA imply many terms into contracts for the sale of new items. Section 20 governs when these implied terms can and cannot be expressly waived by the seller. The SGA also defines these terms as conditions or warranties, thus defining the remedies available if breached.

1. Implied Conditions and Warranties

The vital part of the SGA for the consumer is ss. 16 – 19, which may add statutory conditions and warranties to a contract for the sale of goods, subject to the possibility of exclusion (see Section III.C.2: Exemption from Implied Contractual Terms).

a) Implied Condition of Title: s 16(a)

Section 16(a) provides that, subject to contrary intentions, there is an implied condition that the seller has the right to sell the goods. In an agreement to sell goods at a later date, there is an implied condition that the seller will have the right to sell the goods at the date the buyer takes possession.

b) Implied Warranty of Quiet Possession: ss 16(b) and (c)

Sections 16(b) and (c) provide implied warranties that in the future the buyer will enjoy undisturbed possession of the goods, free from any liens or other encumbrances in favour of third parties that are unknown to the buyer at the time the contract is made. If a secured creditor subsequently makes claims against the buyer, the buyer can sue the seller for damages resulting from breach of this implied warranty. The quantum of damages would likely be the amount of the liens outstanding so that the buyer could pay them off.

c) Implied Condition of Compliance with the Description: s 17

Under s. 17, when goods are sold by description, there is an implied condition that they correspond to the description.

Most sales will be sales by description. The notable exception is where a buyer makes it clear that he or she is buying a particular item on the basis of its qualities known, independent of any representations by the seller. Generally, where a buyer purchases a product because of a vendor’s representations about its features (which may have been offered either gratuitously or in response to the buyer’s questions), this will be a sale by description, with the vendor’s representations forming part of the description. Catalogue purchases and purchases of products sealed in containers by the manufacturer are also sales by description.

NOTE: Specific (as opposed to unascertained) goods are goods that, at the time the contract is made, are agreed to be the only goods whose transfer will satisfy the contract. For example, in a sale of a new chair, if the parties agree that a specific chair is to be the subject matter of the contract, the sale has been of specific goods. So, if the seller attempts to deliver a different chair, which is identical in every way, except that it is not the actual chair agreed upon, the seller has breached the contract. Unascertained goods are goods that are agreed to be the subject matter of the contract at a point in time after the contract is made. For example, in the sale of a new chair, if the parties agree only on a specific type of chair, but do not specifically single out any individual chair, the sale has been of unascertained goods.

Although s 17 cannot be excluded in retail sales of new goods, it may be excluded in private or commercial sales, subject to the contra proferentum rule. The contra proferentum rule states that a contract, if ambiguous, is construed as against the party who wrote it. Where a standard form contract is used, it is construed as against the party who offered it.

A sale by description may also raise s 18(b) issues (see Section III.C.1.e: Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality).

d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a)

Under s 18(a), if:

  • i) the buyer expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that he or she relies on the seller’s skill and judgment; and
  • 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.

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):

  1. that the buyer has made known to the seller the purpose for which it requires the goods;
  2. the dissemination of that purpose shows that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment; and
  3. 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.

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)

Under s 18(b), if: (1) goods are bought by description, and (2) from a seller who deals in goods of that description, the seller is bound by an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality, except to the extent that the buyer has examined them.

(1) The Concept of Merchantable Quality

The concept of merchantable quality is difficult to define. A commonly used test, the price abatement test, asks whether a reasonable buyer, informed of the actual quality of the goods, would buy the goods without a substantial abatement of price (B.S. Brown & Son v Craiks Ltd., [1970] 1 All ER 823 (HL)). If the informed reasonable buyer would not buy without a substantial abatement of price, unmerchantable quality is inferred, and repudiation may be available.

Any damage to goods beyond the de minimus range, may be said to render the goods of unmerchantable quality (IBM v Shcherban, [1925] 1 DLR 864 (Sask CA)).

Section 18(b) applies to the sale of used goods as well. 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 Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd.,[1965] 2 All ER 753 (CA).

In any case, where the buyer seeks recovery of the full purchase price based on the implied condition of merchantable quality, he or she 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.

(2) Sale by Description

Section 18(b) only applies to a sale by description. 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 him apart from any representations.

(3) Seller who Deals in Goods of that Description

In addition to requiring that the sale be by description, section 18(b) also requires that the seller must “deal in goods of that description.” In Hartman 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 section 18(b). In paragraphs 43-47, the BC Supreme Court held that the eBay seller was not a seller “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.

(4) Effect of Examination by the Buyer

If the buyer examines the goods, there is no condition of merchantable quality for defects that the examination ought to have revealed. However, if the average person would not have been able to spot the defect during the exam, the condition of merchantability remains. Hence, it must be determined: 1) whether the buyer examined the goods, and 2) whether the defects ought to have been revealed by the exam. There is no obligation on the buyer to make a reasonable examination, or even any examination.

(5) Implied Condition of Reasonable Durability

The goods must be durable for a reasonable period of time (s 18(c)).

f) Implied Conditions in Sales by Sample: s 19

For a contract to be a sale by sample, there must be “an express or implied term in the contract to that effect” (s 19(1)).

The elements of a sale by sample are set out in s 19(2):

  • i) an implied condition that the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality;
  • ii) an implied condition that the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample; and
  • iii) an implied condition that the goods are free from defects rendering them unmerchantable, which would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample.

The last condition can only be relied upon where the defect would not have been apparent on a hypothetical reasonable examination. Contrast this with the s 18(b) condition of merchantability for sales by description, where the buyer’s actual examination is considered.

2. Exemption from Implied Contractual Terms

a) Private Seller

Based on section 20, Private sellers or lessors, as opposed to retail sellers or lessors, can explicitly exempt themselves from ss 17, 18, and 19. A retail sale is defined as one in the “ordinary course of the sellor or lessor’s business.” This is subject to the contra proferentum rule that such a clause, if ambiguous, is read strictly against the person relying on it.

b) Commercial Seller

Under s 20 of the SGA, retailers of new goods cannot exempt themselves from the implied terms in ss 16 – 19, and any clause that attempts to do so is void, subject to the exceptions listed below. A seller who is making a retail sale in the ordinary course of business can only expressly waive ss 16 – 19 if:

  • i) the goods are used (except s 16, which also applies to used goods);
  • ii) the purchaser, even a private individual, intends to resell the goods;
  • iii) the lease is to a lessee for the purpose of subletting the goods;
  • iv) the purchaser intends to use the goods primarily for business;
  • v) the purchaser is a corporation or commercial enterprise; or
  • vi) the seller is a trustee in bankruptcy, a liquidator, or a sheriff. Where a commercial dealer includes a disclaimer clause exempting the transaction from the provisions in ss 16 – 19, the clause is void, unless one of the exceptions applies.

3. Buyer’s Lien

Amendments to the SGA in 1994 created the buyer’s lien, which gives priority to a consumer who has paid some or all of the purchase price of the goods, but has not taken possession, before the seller goes into receivership or bankruptcy.

next 11-12