198 Chapter 7The Sale of Goods Act 1979
Section 30(2A) provides that a buyer who does not deal as a consumer cannot reject on
account of the wrong quantity having been delivered if the breach is so slight as to make
rejection unreasonable. The buyer could, however, claim damages.
A deviation in the quantity delivered can be ignored if it was so slight that it could be
regarded as ‘a trifle’. For example, in Shipton Anderson & Co vWeil Bros (1912)the buyer
tried to reject a delivery of 4,950 tons of wheat because the delivery was 55 pounds over-
weight. The buyer could not reject because the deviation was so slight as to be a trifle.Delivery by instalments
Section 31 of the SGA 1979 provides that the buyer does not have to accept delivery by
instalments unless the contract provided for delivery by instalments. If this were not the
case, a seller who delivered less than the contract required could later top the delivery up.
If a contract does provide for delivery by instalments difficulties arise where the seller
breaches a condition by delivering one defective instalment. Can the buyer reject just that
one instalment? Or can the buyer terminate the whole contract? Section 31 provides that the
answer depends upon whether the seller’s breach, in delivering the defective instalment,
was a repudiation of the whole contract. If it was a repudiation of the whole contract, the
buyer can treat the whole contract as terminated and sue for non-delivery as regards all
future instalments. If delivering the defective instalment was not a repudiation of the whole
contract, the buyer cannot treat the whole contract as repudiated. The buyer can still refuse
to accept the one defective instalment and sue for damages for non-delivery of that par-
ticular instalment. In deciding whether or not a defective delivery of one instalment was
a repudiation of the whole contract s. 31 says that regard must be had to the terms of the
contract and the circumstances of the case. The two most important circumstances will be:
(i) the percentage of the contract to which the breach related; and
(ii) the likelihood of the breach being repeated.
The following two cases provide examples of these tests being applied.Maple Flock Co Ltd vUniversal Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd (1934)
(Court of Appeal)One hundred tons of waste wool was sold, delivery to be made by instalments of one and a
half tons each. The first 15 instalments delivered were satisfactory. The sixteenth instalment
was defective because it contained eight times more than the legal limit of chlorine. By the
time the buyers noticed this defect, two more satisfactory instalments had been delivered.
HeldThe buyers could not treat the whole contract as terminated. The breach was unlikely
to be repeated and affected only a small percentage of the whole contract.Robert A Munro & Co Ltd vMeyer (1930)Fifteen hundred tons of bone meal were sold, delivery to be by ten instalments. After
600 tons had been delivered, the buyers discovered that all of the meal so far delivered
had been deliberately mixed with cocoa husks.
HeldThe buyers could treat the whole contract as terminated. The breach concerned a
large percentage of the contract and indicated that future deliveries might also be defective.