The Sale of Goods Act - Essay Example

The Sale of Goods Act In our problem, the first issue to be considered is whether the cat seller had breached section 13(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, which requires goods sold by description to conform to their description. Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, states that in a sale by description, the goods must conform to their description. Such sales transpire, if the buyer relies on their description without actually seeing them; or if the buyer, despite seeing the goods, relies on their description by the seller (Fuller, 2010, p. 61). The description of the goods must influence the buyer; this is indispensable, if it is to become an important term in the contract of sale. The other important element in such sales is reliance. The buyer must have relied on the description of the goods. In the absence of reliance on description, the latter does not constitute an important term of the contract (Magrath, 1989). As such, there should be reasonable understanding among the parties that the buyer will rely on the description of the goods. The kitten purchased by Dusko is of very poor quality, as it does not conform to its contractual description. Goods sold by description must conform to their description. In Harlingdon & Leinster Enter. Ltd. v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd the court held that the description of the goods constitutes an essential feature of the goods sold. Quality and suitability of the goods sold are implied terms in the contract of sale by description or sample. Implied terms render the seller of the goods liable if these goods do not conform to their description. If the contract does not incorporate a term of description, then the buyer has to establish that he had relied on the fraudulent inducement of the seller. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim of the buyer against the seller for damages (Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd, 1990). However, in Bannerman v White, the court held that the statement made by the defendant during negotiations was a term of the contract (Bannerman v White, 1861). Furthermore, in Birch v Paramount Estates, the defendants provided some information regarding the quality of the house. The buyer relied on this statement, and the court held that this statement was a term of contract (Birch v Paramount Estates , 1956). In Ecay v Godfrey, the court held that statements regarding soundness did not constitute terms of a contract (Koffman and Macdonald, 2007, p. 114). In the Dick Bentley case, it was held by the Court of Appeal that mileage was a term of the contract. Moreover, a car dealer was in a better position than the customer in assessing the mileage shown by the odometer; hence, the car dealer was held liable. In our problem, even though Dusko had inspected the kitten, he had to rely on the description made by the seller. Since, the kitten was not in conformity with its description, the seller is liable under the provisions of section 13(1). As such, contracts between parties include terms, which impose certain obligations on them. These implied terms are provided by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002 and by custom or necessity (Terms of the Contract). The Privy Council opined that Section 13(1) requires two important factors. First, the seller must have the knowledge about the use of the goods, and second, the seller must have relied on the description given by the seller. These two elements are interrelated. In addition, the buyer must inform the seller about the use to which he intends to put the goods. This enables the buyer to establish that he had relied on the skill and judgment of the seller (Webb, 2002, p.215). Such information should enable the seller to reasonably understand the specific nature of the use. In our case, implied terms under section 13 had been breached by the seller, as the kitten did not correspond to its description. It had been described as a pure bred, which it was not. The following case law reveals the courts’ attitudes in dealing with contractual statements. A warranty can be inferred, if the seller makes a statement that falls within the purview of his knowledge, and which the buyer has no knowledge of. For instance, in Couchman v Hill, the seller made a false statement that a heifer was un served. The court ruled that the seller was liable, as this statement was a contractual term (Couchman v Hill , 1974). Similarly, in Harling v Eddy, a tubercular heifer was sold as a healthy animal. The court ruled that the seller’s statement regarding its health constituted a term of the contract (Harling v Eddy, 1951). The next issue to be considered, in our problem, is whether the seller is in breach of the implied condition under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, in respect of satisfactory quality. This section defines satisfactory quality as what would be described as satisfactory by a reasonable person. Such evaluation should consider the price and description of the goods, and other pertinent features. Dusko had paid an excess amount for the kitten. Since, he was not familiar with cat breeds; he had to rely on the description provided by the seller. Subsequently, it came to light that the kitten was not a pure bred tabby. Hence, the kitten is not of satisfactory quality. Consequently, the seller is in breach of section 14(2). Hence, the seller had violated the implied condition in section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This implied condition requires goods sold in the course of business to be of satisfactory quality. The kitten was unsatisfactory, on account of its vicious temperament. Moreover, the kitten, which was purchased as a pet, proved to be unfit for the purpose of its purchase, as it exhibited violent behaviour towards the family members of Dusko and the other pets in the house. In the event of a breach of a condition by the seller, the buyer is at liberty to treat the contract as repudiated, under section 48(A)(2)(b)(ii). Furthermore, a buyer can require the seller to reduce the cost of the goods. This is permissible under section 48(C) (1) (a). Moreover, under section 48(B) (1) (b), the buyer may require the seller to replace the goods. In addition, Section 48(A) (3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 states that if the goods failed to conform to their description at the time of their sale, within six months of the sale, then it will be construed that the goods had not been in conformity with their description at the time of their sale (Kelly, Holmes, & Hayward, 2005, p. 208). In our problem the kitten proved to be not in conformity with its description, after it was taken to Dusko’s house. It was not a loving pet, as had been described by the cat breeder. Under Section 48 A, Dusko can rescind the contract for breach of terms in respect of sections 13 and 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. In addition, he can ask for either a reduction in the price or replacement of the kitten, under the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. List of References Bannerman v White, 10 CBNS 844 (1861). Birch v Paramount Estates , 167 EG 196 (1956). Couchman v Hill , KB 554 (1974). Dick Bentley Productions Ltd v Harold Smith Motors Ltd, 2 All ER 65 (March 3, 1965). Ecay v Godfrey , 80 Ll L Rep 286 (1947). Fuller, G. (2010). Purchasing Contracts: A Practical Guide. Spiramus Press Ltd. Harling v Eddy, 2 KB 739 (1951). Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd, 1 All ER 737 (Queen's Bench 1990). Kelly , D., Holmes, A. E., & Hayward, R. (2005). Business Law David. Routledge. Koffman, L., & Macdonald, E. (2007). The law of contract. Oxford University Press. Leaf v International Galleries, (1950) 2 KB 86. Magrath, P. (1989, December 22). Art sale contract not broken though attribution wrong: Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd. The Independent , p. 1. Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumer Regulations 2002 . (n.d.). Sale of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973. (n.d.). Sale of Goods Act 1979. (n.d.). Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. (n.d.). Terms of the Contract. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Insite Law: http://www.insitelawmagazine.com/ch7termsofcontract.htm Webb, D. (2002). Commercial Law. New Zealand Law Review , 199, pp. 199 – 216. Read More