Terms implied by statute 85Public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods
Section 14(2D) provides that where the buyer deals as a consumer, the relevant circum-
stances in s. 14(2A) include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods
made about them by the seller, the producer or his representatives, particularly in advertis-
ing or labelling. (Producer means the manufacturer of the goods, or the person who
imported them into the EU or a person who put his own name, trade mark or other distinc-
tive mark on the goods.) So if a car manufacturer advertised that a certain model of car did
45 miles per gallon, a customer who bought such a car new from a garage, and found that
it did not achieve this mileage, might be able to claim that the car was not of satisfactory
quality. However, s. 14(2E) provides that a public statement is not by virtue of s. 14(2D) to
be considered a relevant circumstance if the seller can show one of three things:
(i) that at the time of the contract the seller was not, and could not reasonably have been,
aware of the statement; or
(ii) that the statement had been withdrawn in public or corrected in public before the
contract was made; or
used. They saw the Dolphin at a show in Malvern where E was displaying it. Shortly after-
wards, after living in the Dolphin for a few days, B bought it for £61,000. B had ample
opportunity to measure the width of the Dolphin before purchasing it but there was no evid-
ence that he actually did this. After some seven months using the vehicle, B measured it
and found it to be 102 inches wide. B complained to E about this. E said that the width
would not cause a problem and B continued to use the Dolphin. After another four months
B complained to E that he thought he had bought a 100 inch wide vehicle, not an illegal
102 inch wide one. Two months later B asked E to take the Dolphin back in part exchange
for one of two other vehicles, one of which was also 102 inches wide. When these requests
were refused he sued E.
HeldB had not proved that s. 14(2A) had been breached on account of the vehicle being
too wide. There was plenty of evidence that the authorities turned a blind eye to the use
of vehicles which were 102 inches wide and enthusiasts for such vehicles knew this.
Consequently, B had not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that a reasonable person
would regard the vehicle as unsatisfactory.
CommentAuld LJ gave the only judgment. When considering the excessive width of the
vehicle, he said that the test of satisfactory quality was an objective test which focused
on the attitude of the reasonable person. However, he went on to say that this meant the
reasonable person in the position of the buyer with the buyer’s knowledge, and that it
would not be appropriate to consider a reasonable third party observer who was not
acquainted with the background of the transaction. ‘The reasonable buyer must be attrib-
uted with knowledge of all background facts... such facts in this case would include that:
...a significant number of vehicles of greater width than permitted in this country were in
use on its roads; and the authorities were turning a blind eye to that illegal use.’ Recognising
that there were arguments both for and against a reasonable person thinking that the
Dolphin was of satisfactory quality, Auld LJ held that B had failed to prove that the reason-
able person would think that the Dolphin was not of satisfactory quality. B had therefore
not discharged his obligation to prove his case on a balance of probabilities.