(b) appearance and finish;
(c) freedom from minor defects;
(d) safety; and
(e) durability.
Under s 14(2D) the ‘relevant circumstances’ referred
to in s 14(2A) include any public statements about the
specific characteristics of the goods made by the seller,
the producer or his representative particularly in advert-
ising or labelling but only where the buyer deals as a
consumer. A person is a consumer if he is a natural per-
son acting for purposes outside his trade, business or
profession. The seller will not be responsible for a pub-
lic statement in the following situations:
■if at the time the contract was made he was not and
could not have been aware of the statement, e.g. a
retailer based in one part of the country may not be
liable for an advertising campaign run by the manu-
facturer in a different part of the country;
■where, before the contract was made, the statement
had been withdrawn or, if it was misleading or incor-
rect, it had been corrected in public;
■the consumer could not have been influenced by the
statement.
It is likely to be some time before many cases are
reported on the new definition of quality. The following
explanation of the new implied term as to quality, of
necessity, is illustrated by some cases decided according
to the old definition of ‘merchantable quality’.
The requirement that goods must be of satisfactory
quality means that a brand new washing machine should
wash your clothes properly; new shoes should not fall
apart on their first outing; and a meat pie bought for
your lunch should not make you ill. Section 14(2) does
not impose absolute standards of quality with which all
goods must comply. However, the goods must be satis-
factory to a reasonable person. A reasonable person is
unlikely, for example, to find the quality of new goods
satisfactory if they have minor or cosmetic defects.
Part 3Business transactions
306
after delivery, the engine was misfiring at all road speeds
and excessive noise was coming from the gearbox. There
were also substantial defects in the bodywork. The
claimants notified the dealers that they were rejecting
the vehicle. The Court of Appeal held that the suppliers
were in breach of the implied term as to quality. The
court held that the definition of merchantability involved
considering not only if the car was capable of getting
from A to B safely, but also the buyer’s reasonable ex-
pectations of being able to do so with the appropriate
degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability, and
with appropriate pride in the vehicle’s appearance. The
court found that the buyers’ reasonable expectations of
a £16,000 new Range Rover had not been met in this
case. The claimants had not received value for money.
Comment. In an earlier case, Millars of Falkirk Ltdv
Turpie(1976), the Inner House of the Scottish Court of
Session held that a car with a slight oil leak in the power-
assisted steering (which could be repaired for about £25)
was of merchantable quality. Factors relevant to the
decision were: (i) the minor nature of the defect; (ii) the
ease with which the defect could be cured; (iii) the will-
ingness of the dealers to effect a repair; (iv) the obvious
nature of the defect; (v) the absence of serious risk; and
(vi) many new cars have minor defects on delivery. This
case raised doubts whether a car which could be driven
safely but with minor repairable defects could be said to
be unmerchantable. The Rogerscase resolved some of
those doubts by deciding that merchantable quality
should not be tested by usability alone. The Law Com-
mission cited the decision in the Rogerscase with
approval. The Commissioners also took the view that the
car in the Millarscase would fail the new test of quality
proposed in their report.Rogersv Parish (Scarborough) Ltd(1987)The claimants bought a new Range Rover for £16,000.
After a few weeks of unsatisfactory use, the vehicle
was returned to the dealers and the claimants accepted
another Range Rover as a substitute. Unfortunately, the
second vehicle proved no better than the first. Six monthsShinev General Guarantee Corp Ltd
(1988)
Mr Shine purchased an enthusiast’s car. When he in-
quired subsequently whether there was a manufacturer’s
rust warranty, he discovered that the car had been writ-
ten off after having been submerged in water for 24 hours.
Mr Shine terminated the agreement. The Court of Appeal
held that the car was unmerchantable. Mr Shine thought
he was buying a second-hand enthusiast’s car in good
condition for a fair price when in fact he was buying,
in the words of Bush J, ‘one which no member of the
public would touch with a barge pole unless they could
get it at a substantially reduced price to reflect the risk
they were taking’.