the stated purpose. Where the buyer purchases goods
with only one normal purpose, he makes his purpose
known by implication. Food must be fit for eating and
clothes fit for wearing.
Sample (s 15)
Section 15 provides that in a contract of sale by sample
there is an implied condition:
■that the bulk will correspond with the sample in
quality;
■that the buyer will have a reasonable opportunity of
comparing the bulk with the sample;
■that the goods will be free from any defect making
their quality unsatisfactory which would not be appar-
ent on reasonable examination of the sample.
This section, like s 13, applies to both business and
private sales. The application of s 15 can be illustrated by
the following case.Part 3Business transactions
308
Grantv Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
(1936)
Dr Grant bought a pair of woollen underpants from a
shop. The manufacturers neglected to remove properly
a chemical which was used in the manufacturing pro-
cess. Dr Grant developed a skin rash which turned into
dermatitis. It was held that the underpants were not of
merchantable quality or reasonably fit for the purpose.
Although Dr Grant had not specifically stated the pur-
pose for which he required the underpants, it was clear
by implication that he intended to wear them.If the buyer has any special requirements, these must
be made known to the seller.
Griffithsv Peter Conway Ltd(1939)The claimant purchased a Harris tweed coat from the
defendants. After wearing the coat for a short period of
time, she contracted dermatitis. She failed in her claim
for damages under s 14(3). It was shown that the coat
would not have affected someone with a normal skin.
The claimant had not made known to the defendants the
fact that she had an abnormally sensitive skin.In order to be successful under s 14(3), the buyer
must show that he relied on the seller’s skill and judg-
ment. Reliance will normally be assumed from the fact
that the buyer has taken his custom to that particular
shop. However, if a buyer asks for an item under its
brand name or lays down detailed specifications as to
what he wants, he will find it difficult to show that he has
relied on the seller’s skill and judgment.
The relationship between s 14(2) and s 14(3) was
explored by the Court of Appeal in the following case.
ages for breach of s 14(2) and (3) of the Sale of Goods
Act 1979. Kelly’s case was that the boilers were not of
satisfactory quality nor fit for the purpose because the
boilers relied on peak-rate electricity, they reduced the
Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) energy ratings of
the flats and, as a result, Kelly had found it difficult to
market the flats. He had been unable to keep up repay-
ments on the loan he had taken out to finance the flat
conversion and the lender had repossessed the building.
The Court of Appeal held that it is the function of s 14(3),
not s 14(2), to impose an obligation tailored to the
particular circumstances of the buyer. The buyer had not
argued that there was anything unsatisfactory about the
intrinsic qualities of the boilers. The issue was whether
their impact on the energy ratings for the flats rendered
them unsatisfactory, and this depended on a number of
factors relating to the boilers and the nature of the flat
conversion. Although Kelly made it clear to Jewson that
he wanted to buy the boilers to install in flats for sale, he
did not provide information about the particular charac-
teristics of the building being converted. Kelly could not
be said to have relied on Jewson’s skill and judgment
with respect to the suitability of the boilers for installation
in the building in question because he did not give
Jewson the relevant information nor did he ask specific
questions about energy ratings. This was a case of
partial reliance on the seller’s skill and judgment; Kelly
could reasonably rely on the seller’s skill and judgment
in respect of the boilers’ intrinsic qualities but in this
respect the boilers were reasonably fit for their purpose.
Jewson Ltd was not in breach of s 14(3) and there was
equally no breach of s 14(2); a reasonable man would
not conclude that the boilers were not of satisfactory
quality.Jewson Ltdv Kelly(2003)Kelly had acquired a former school building which he
was converting into flats. He bought 12 electric boilers
from Jewson Ltd but failed to pay for them. Jewson
brought proceedings and Kelly counterclaimed for dam-