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

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
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

Navigation menu