84 Chapter 3The terms of the contract
For the purposes of this Act, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the follow-
ing (among others) are in appropriate cases aspects of the quality of the goods
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
(e) durability.
It is important not to get carried away with s. 14(2B). The five matters listed are not absolute
requirements of quality. They are aspects of quality in appropriate cases.Example
A car which has been written off in an accident is sold by a business for scrap. The car will be
of satisfactory quality even though it might be unfit to be driven, badly battered and completely
unsafe. Taking into account the description, the price and all the other relevant circum-
stances, the reasonable person would regard such a car as being of satisfactory quality.The liability imposed on the seller by s. 14(2) is strict and does not depend upon the seller
having been at fault. Shops which sell defective goods will breach s. 14(2) even if the goods
were sold in packaging which prevented the defect from being discovered.
In Darren Egan vMotor Services (Bath) Ltd (2007)Lady Justice Ward, giving the only
significant judgment of the Court of Appeal, considered the extent to which a minor defect
would make an expensive new car of unsatisfactory quality. She said,... it seems to me unlikely that a buyer will be entitled to reject goods simply because he can point
to a minor defect. He must also persuade the judge that a reasonable person would think that the
minor defect was of sufficient consequence to make the goods unsatisfactory. Of course, if a car is
not handling correctly, one would expect any reasonable person to say that it is not of satisfactory
quality...But the mere fact that a setting is outside the manufacturer’s specification will not
necessarily render the vehicle objectively unsatisfactory. The reasonable person may think that
the minor defect is of no consequence.
In Thain vAnniesland Trade Centre 1997a Scottish court held that durability was not
an appropriate aspect of quality when a five or six year old Renault 19, which had done
80,000 miles, was bought for slightly under 30 per cent of the price of a new model. Within
two weeks of purchase the car’s gear box developed a fault which soon made the car
undriveable. The court was satisfied that this fault had not been present when the car was
bought. It held that the car was of satisfactory quality. Durability was not a quality which a
reasonable person would have expected of this particular car.
In the following case the Court of Appeal considered whether a new motor home was of
unsatisfactory quality because it was, technically, too wide to be legally driven on UK roads.
Bramhill vEdwards (2004) (Court of Appeal)E was a specialist dealer in motor homes imported from the USA. He imported a ‘Dolphin’
motor home which was 102 inches wide. Vehicles over 100 inches wide cannot legally be
used on the UK roads, although insurance companies are prepared to insure them. B and
his wife were enthusiasts who knew that vehicles over 100 inches wide could not legally be