This important term only applies to sales in the course of a business, not to
private sales, so although a consumer is protected in buying from a shop or
other commercial concern, there is far less protection when buying from an
individual. The principle of caveat emptor will then apply, which literally
translated means ‘let the buyer beware’. This means, for example, that in a
private sale the buyer must watch out for evidence of defects in products
purchased, etc., as there will not be any protection under this section
regarding quality, once the deal is done. This creates an anomaly between
two different types of purchase by the same individual, but it could, on the
other hand, be argued that the consumer would be paying more if
purchasing from a business retail outlet, enabling the seller to provide for
the cost of statutory protection. Despite this difference the section is
nevertheless a very important measure in consumer protection.
The change of wording from ‘merchantable’ to ‘satisfactory’ was made in
an attempt to make the meaning of the section clearer, but it is arguable that
on their own the words ‘merchantable’ and ‘satisfactory’ are equally vague.
A slight change of emphasis could be implied, since ‘merchantable’ strictly
would indicate fit to be sold, where ‘satisfactory’ may indicate a state in
which the consumer is happy to receive the goods. Because of the difficulty
of interpreting the word ‘satisfactory’ the Sale and Supply of Goods Act
1994 explains what may be taken into account:
Section 14
(2A) For the purposes of this Act, 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
(if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances. (2B) For the
purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and
condition and the following (among others) are in appropriate cases
aspects of the quality of goods –240 Contract law
Bernstein v Pamsons Motors (1987)
A new Nissan car was purchased, and after three weeks and 140 miles
the engine seized up on the motorway. It was found that sealant had
escaped into the lubrication system when the car was assembled and had
caused a blockage, depriving the car of oil. It was held that a consumer
who buys a new car is entitled to expect that the engine will not seize up
after three weeks if the car is to be considered as ‘merchantable’ quality.Rogers v Parish (1987)
This case concerned a new Range Rover. On delivery defects were found
in the engine, gearbox, bodywork, and oil-seals. The plaintiff drove the
car for six months, constantly complained, but drove 5,500 miles in
between visits to the garage. There were still faults remaining with the
car after six months, and it was held to be not of merchantable quality.