Description (s 13)
Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by descrip-
tion, there is an implied condition that the goods will
correspond with the description (s 13(1)). If the buyer
does not see the goods before he buys them (e.g. from a
mail order catalogue or through the Internet), there has
clearly been a sale by description. Even where the buyer
has seen the goods and, perhaps, selected them himself,
it may still be a sale by description, if he has relied to
some extent on a description.
The description of the goods may cover such matters
as size, quantity, weight, ingredients, origin or even how
they are to be packed. The slightest departure from the
specifications will entitle the buyer to reject the goods
for breach of a condition of the contract.Part 3Business transactions
304
Bealev Taylor(1967)The defendant advertised a car for sale as a 1961 Triumph
Herald. The claimant inspected the car before he bought
it. He later discovered that the vehicle consisted of a rear
half of a 1961 Herald, which had been welded to the front
half of an earlier model. The Court of Appeal held that
the claimant was entitled to damages for breach of s 13,
even though he had seen and inspected the car. He had
relied to some extent on the description contained in the
advertisement.If the buyer has forgotten about the description by the
time he buys the goods or does not believe what he has
been told and checks the details for himself, he may lose
the protection of s 13 because he has not relied on the
description.
merely because the seller has issued some statement
about the goods. The buyer must show that the descrip-
tion influenced the decision to buy. Since the claimant
was unable to show this, his action failed.
Comment. The claimant also argued that the painting
was not of merchantable quality under s 14 of the Sale
of Goods Act 1979 (see later). The court held that the
misattribution did not detract from the quality of the
painting so as to make it unmerchantable. In the words
of Nourse LJ: ‘It could still have been hung on a wall
somewhere and been enjoyed for what it was.. .’Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltdv
Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd(1990)
The defendant sold a painting to the claimant which
turned out to be a fake. The defendant believed that the
painting was by Munter, an artist of the German Expres-
sionist School, because he had seen it attributed to
Munter in an auction catalogue. He described the paint-
ing as a Munter during negotiations with the claimant,
although he made it clear that he knew nothing about
Munter’s work and lacked expertise in German Expres-
sionist painting. The claimant, who was also lacking in
relevant expertise, inspected the painting and decided
that it was authentic. He agreed to buy it. The painting
was described in the defendant’s invoice as a Munter.
When the claimant discovered that the painting was a
fake, he sued under s 13(1) to recover the purchase
price. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant had
made it clear that his attribution could not be relied upon
and that the claimant should have exercised his own
judgment. A contract will not be a sale by descriptionRe Moore & Co and Landauer & Co
(1921)
The claimants agreed to supply 3,000 tins of Australian
canned fruit, packed in cases containing 30 tins each.
When the goods were delivered, it was discovered that
about half of the consignment was packed in cases con-
taining 24 tins. Although the correct quantity had been
delivered, the defendants decided to reject the whole
consignment. It was held that this was a sale by descrip-
tion under s 13 and since the goods did not correspond
with that description, the defendants were entitled to
repudiate the contract.
Comment.This decision seems to be at odds with a
well-established principle that the law does not concern
itself with trifling matters. Lord Wilberforce in Reardon
Smith Line vYngvar Hanson-Tangen(1976) cast doubt
on the correctness of the Moore and Landauerdecision
and suggested that it should be re-examined by the
House of Lords.A seller may ensure that the transaction is not a sale
by description by including such phrases as ‘Bought as
seen’ or ‘Sold as seen’ in the contract (Cavendish-
Woodhouse Ltd vManley(1984)).Quality and suitability (s 14)
Section 14 of the original 1893 Sale of Goods Act incor-
porated two implied terms into every sale of goods con-
tract by a trader: that the goods were of merchantable