5,483
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 05:48, 15 June 2016
, 05:48, 15 June 2016→d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a)
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) ==== | ||
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 | *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 | ||
| Line 93: | Line 95: | ||
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. | 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. | 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) ==== | ==== e) Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality: s 18(b) ==== | ||
