untitled

Terms implied by statute 81

Section 13(2) provides that goods can be sold by both sample and description. If they are,
they must correspond with both the description and the sample. Section 13(3) provides that
goods can still be sold by description even if, being exposed for sale or hire, they are
selected by the buyer. So the fact that a buyer chooses goods, perhaps in a supermarket for
example, will not prevent the goods from having been sold by description.
Figure 3.5 shows how s. 13 operates.

Quality and fitness in business sales (s. 14)

Section 14(2) of the SGA 1979 implies a term that goods sold in the course of a business are
of satisfactory quality.
Section 14(3) of the SGA 1979 implies a term that goods sold in the course of a business
are reasonably fit for the buyer’s purpose.

Business sales

The terms as to satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose are implied only where goods
are sold in the course of a business. Neither section will apply where goods are sold by a
private seller. The following case considered the circumstances in which goods are sold in
the course of a business.

Re Moore & Co and Landauer & Co (1921) (Court of Appeal)

A consignment of 3,100 tins of peaches was sold. The goods were to be shipped

from Australia to a buyer in London. The buyer rejected the consignment on the grounds

that whereas the peaches had been described as packed 30 tins to a case, about half

of the tins were packed 24 to a case instead of 30. The correct number of tins were

delivered.

HeldThe buyer could reject all of the tins. Section 13(1) had been breached because the

goods did not correspond with the description by which they had been sold.

CommentThe principle in this case, that where unascertained goods are sold in a

commercial context then any description is likely to be within s. 13, has not changed.

However, s. 15A would now force the buyer to treat the breach of condition as a breach of

warranty. Therefore, he could not terminate the contract if the case were to arise today, but

could only claim damages. (Section 15A is considered later in this chapter, after all of the

statutory implied terms have been considered.)

Stevenson vRogers (1999) (Court of Appeal)

The defendant had been in business as a fisherman for 20 years. He sold an old fishing boat

when he wanted to buy a new one. The boat sold, which was not of satisfactory quality,

was not being used as part of the stock in trade of the business at the time of sale. The

defendant argued that no term as to satisfactory quality should be implied as the boat was

not sold in the course of a business.

t