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 00:24, 6 August 2021
, 00:24, 6 August 2021→d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a)
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
Under s 18(a), if: | Under s 18(a), if: | ||
* | * The buyer expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular <u>purpose</u> for which the goods are required, so as to show that they rely on the <u>seller’s skill and judgment</u>; and | ||
* | * The goods are of a description which it is in the course of the <u>seller’s business</u> 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 because the buyer is no longer relying on the seller’s skill and judgement. | 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 because the buyer is no longer relying on the seller’s skill and judgement. | ||
To establish a claim under s 18(a) of the ''SGA'', three factors must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities ( | To establish a claim under s 18(a) of the ''SGA'', three factors must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2012/2012bcsc1412/2012bcsc1412.html?autocompleteStr=Nikka%20Traders%20&autocompletePos=1 ''Nikka Traders Inc v Gizella Pastry Ltd'', 2012 BCSC 1412] at para 65): | ||
# That the buyer has made known to the seller the purpose for which it requires the goods; | # 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 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. | # 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 | 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 [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2006/2006bcpc265/2006bcpc265.html?autocompleteStr=Sugiyama%20v%20Pilsen&autocompletePos=1 ''Sugiyama v Pilsen'', 2006 BCPC 265] at para 71, the court held that s 18(a) provides a warranty that a car is “a reliable vehicle for use in driving in safety on the roads” and a car being sold must be reasonably fit for such purpose. 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. See | 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. See [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca78/2002bcca78.html#par38 ''Wharton v Tom Harris Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac'', 2002 BCCA 78] at paras 38-39. | ||
==== e) Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality: s 18(b) ==== | ==== e) Implied Condition of Merchantable Quality: s 18(b) ==== | ||