2,734
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 19:55, 4 October 2022
, 19:55, 4 October 2022→d) Implied Condition of Fitness for Buyer’s Purpose: s 18(a)
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
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. | 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 [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. | 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 Ltd'', 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) ==== | ||