5,109
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 04:24, 13 August 2016
, 04:24, 13 August 2016→(1) The Concept of Merchantable Quality
| 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 ('' | Any damage to goods beyond the de minimus range, may be said to render the goods of unmerchantable quality (''International Business Machines v Shcherban'', [1925] 1 DLR 864 (Sask CA), [1925] 1 WWR 405). | ||
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). | 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 (Eng 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. | 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 ===== | ===== (2) Sale by Description ===== | ||