There is an implied term that the
goods shall be of satisfactory quality, according to s 14 of the SoGA 1979.
While s 14 uses the word ‘term’, it is clear from s 14 that the term is a
condition. Unlike s 13, s 14 does not apply to private sales; that is, the goods
must be sold in the course of a business. The term ‘sale in the course of a business’
is not defined in the SoGA 1979, but in Stevenson v Rogers it was heldthat a
fisherman ‘acted in the course of business’ when he sold his trawler. Even though
he did not deal in vessels, it was a sale connected with his business. which discusses the meaning of ‘in the course
of business’ in the context of s 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Thus, goods which come within s 14 include not
only goods sold in the normal course of business, but also goods used in or
connected with the business, for example, the sale of a van which has been used
in a grocery business.
The meaning of the requirement of
‘satisfactory quality’ must also be considered. Section 14 states that ‘goods
are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person
would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods,
the price and all other relevant
circumstances’. In Jewson v Kelly the buyer purchased heating boilers for the
flats he wasrefurbishing for sale as low cost/energy efficient. The boilers did
not comply with low cost/energy efficient ratings but did provide adequate
heating. At first instance, the boilers were found not to be of satisfactory
quality under s 14 because a reasonable person buying such a flat would expect
it to be possible to show evidence of the low cost/energy efficient claim, that
is, what a ‘reasonable person’ would expect had to be looked at in the context
of the particular requirements of the contract. However, the Court of Appeal
found there was no breach of s 14 the particular requirements of a buyer in the
context of a particular contract were a matter for s 14 of the SoGA 1979 not s
14 Under s 14 the factor to consider was the intrinsic quality of the goods;
the court should determine what quality a reasonable person would expect from a
heating boiler. The court decided a reasonable person would expect a boiler to
heat adequately, which these boilers did; the expectations of a reasonable
person in relation to these particular boilers should be decided under s 14 Section 14 must
be read subject to s 14 which states:
...
the quality of the goods includes their state and condition and the following
factors (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of
goods:
(i)
fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly
supplied;
(ii)
appearance and finish;
(iii)
freedom from minor defects;
(iv)
safety; and
(v)
durability.
0 comments:
Post a Comment