5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Contracts for Sale of Goods (11:III) (view source)
Revision as of 00:23, 15 June 2016
, 00:23, 15 June 2016no edit summary
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
==== d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a) ==== | ==== d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a) ==== | ||
*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): | |||
#that the buyer has made known to the seller the purpose for which it requires the goods; | |||
#the dissemination of that purpose shows that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment; and | |||
#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. | |||
Under s 18(a), if: | Under s 18(a), if: | ||