Contract Rights SGA Flashcards
Pinnock Bros v Lewis and Peat Ltd
S.13 Description
Good must correspond with description
When there is an added material or contamination, goods do not correspond
Facts: copra cake mixed with castor beans
Re Moore v Landauer
S.13 Description
Packaging description must confer to contract
Facts: contract described 30 pack of tinned peaches, came in 24. Held buyer had right to reject
Wilson v Rickett Cockerell and Co Ltd
S.14 Satisfactory condition
‘Goods supplied’ applies to all goods delivered, whether they conform to contract or not
Facts: coalite purchased, when lit it exploded in fireplace, erroneously contained explosive material
Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd
S.14 satisfactory quality
Goods are satisfactory if the reasonable person would regard it so
Facts: brand new car veered and buyer sought to reject, but the car veered on cambered road which the reasonable person would accept
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills
S.14 satisfactory quality
Buyer is not obliged to carry out another act before first time use.
Facts: (Australian case) - d bought underwear still containing harmful chemicals and developed skin disorder. D not obliged to wash before first use and sued for damages in negligence.
L’Estrange v Graucob
By signing a contract you are bound by its terms, irrespective of whether it was read or not.
Including exclusion clauses, which are then controlled by UCTA)
Facts: broken cigarette machine purchased and contract signed with clauses excluding the machines condition
Bartlett v Sydney Marcus
S.14 satisfactory quality
If seller brings defect to attention of the buyer, the buyer cannot assert rights under s.14 due to (2C)
Facts: claimant bought second hand jaguar from dealer, dealer notified buyer of clutch defect but buyer took a discount without repair. It ended up costing more to repair separately but buyer could not claim
Aswan Engineering Establishment Co. V Lupdine ltd
S.14 satisfactory quality
Some goods may need to be handled a certain way before use
Facts: plastic pails were stacked in a hot environment and melted before delivery. held they were satisfactory before but not taken care of properly.
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd
S.14(3) Fit for purpose
Some goods unsuitable for an unexpected group of people but fit for most will not breach
Facts: tweed coat irritated claimants skin but seller could not have been expected to know of its effect on a small number of people
Clegg v Anderson
S.35 loss of right to reject accepted goods
Negotiations and requests for additional information to remedy a defect does not affect the reasonable time lapse to accept the goods (take it into account)
Facts: yacht had overweight keel, it took 3 weeks for more information to remedy which does not mean reasonable time has exceeded for acceptance
