Question 1 As a general rule of Section 16 (1) (a) of Sale of Goods Act 1957, a buyer must beware when making

a purchase as to the quality of goods purchased. He is expected not to be careless or he will bear the consequences not able to claim against the seller. This rule is known as caveat emptor which means buyer must beware. Hence, the seller would not be liable if the goods is not fit or does not have the quality as required by the buyer. In order to invoke Section 16(1) (a) of the SOGA 1957, so that the buyer may sue the seller for breach of this implied condition, there are some conditions which must be fulfilled by the buyer such disclosure of purpose. The buyer must make known or disclosure to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required or purchased. Otherwise, the implied condition as to fitness for particular purpose would not apply. The buyer has to take the risk and the seller would not be liable for breach of implied condition, even though the goods are not fit or suitable for the buyers particular purpose. For example the case or Priest v Last. The plaintiff purchased a hot water bottle from the defendant, a retail chemist. Some days later, the bottle, while in use by the plaintiffs wife, burst. As a result she scalded and the plaintiff sued the defendant. It was held that if the description of the goods by which they were sold pointed to one particular purpose only, then the requirement of disclosure of purpose is deemed fulfilled. The buyer must also establish that he had relied on the sellers skill and judgement before purchasing the goods. In other words, the buyer must have relied on the sellers

recommendation as to which goods to buy. The degree of reliance is a matter of reasonable inference from the circumstances of each case. In the case of Cammell Laird & Co. v

Manganese Bronze & Brass Co. Ltd, there was a contract by A to build a propeller for B in accordance with Bs specification and design and to fit particular ship and its engine. However, the details as to the thickness of the blades were left to the sellers skill and judgment. The propeller supplied complied with the specification but did not suit the ships engine. The court held that A was liable for breach of an implied condition because the buyer had informed the seller of the purpose or which he needed the propeller and relied on the sellers skill and judgment to provide them. Other condition is the good bought by the buyer must be the kind which is in the course of the sellers business to supply. For example, if the seller sells cars, then the buyer must have bought a car or cars from the seller to be able to sue under this provision. But, if the buyer buys a pair of scissors and it is not fit for its particular purpose, then the buyer cannot invoke this

section to claim against the seller. The case of Ashington Piggeries Ltd. V Christopher Hill Ltd was the seller was the manufacturer and dealer in animal feed. However, it had never made feed for mink. This was made clear to the buyer, but the seller agreed nevertheless, to make up such a compound from a formula provided by the buyer. However, the compound produced was not fit for the mink. The issue whether the compound was of the description which was in the course of the sellers business to supply. It was held that the product was a feeding

compound. Although the seller had never previously supplied that particular feeding compound, but it was of the kind which it was the sellers business to supply. Next is the goods must not have been bought under patent or trade name. if a buyer bought the goods under a patent or trade name, it gives the impression that he is not relying on the sellers skill and judgment. They cannot later complain that the goods are not fit for the particular purpose he required. In the case of Baldry v Marshall, it was held that the buyer had asked the dealer for a car suitable for touring. The dealer recommended a Bugatti car. A contract for the sale of a Bugatti car was made. It was later found that the car was not suitable for touring. The court held that the dealer was liable because the buyer had relied on the dealers skill and judgment in the selection of a car suitable for the buyers stated purpose even though it was sold under a trade name.

Question 2 In Section 16 (1) (b) of the SOGA is implied condition the good supplied must be of merchantable quality except in respect of defects specifically drawn to the buyers attention before the contract is made and defects which any examination actually carried out by the buyer before the contract ought to reveal. Buyer must not expect very cheap goods to be of the same quality as more expensive one. second hand. The case of M/S Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine was held that the buyer bought some heavy duty plastics pails which to transport a liquid waterproofing compound to the Middle East. The pails, filled with the compound were stacked up to six high in the shipping containers and on arrival at their destination, Kuwait, were left still stacked up to six high, in full sunshine on the quayside. Eventually, the extreme heat caused the pails to collapse and the entire compound was lost. The buyer sued the seller claiming that the pails were not of merchantable quality as, it was argued, and they should be fit for all the purposes for which goods of this type would commonly be used. The court held that for goods to be Other relevant consideration might be that the goods are

unmerchantable they had to be unfit for any purpose for which goods sold under the contract description would normally is used. These pails could be used for export shipment to many parts of the world. The buyer lost his action. This act will not by apply when the seller sells the goods privately, that is, not in the course of a business. It will also not be implied in relation to defects which are specifically drawn to the buyers attention before he buys the goods. Thus, for example, a buyer goes into a garage to buy a car and sees a particular model that he likes but, before he buys, the seller points out that the clutch is defective and need to be repaired. If the buyer, knowing of these defects, goes ahead and buys the car, he cannot late reject the car because of these defects. In the case of Barlett v Sydney Marcus Ltd it was held that a buyer was offered a car but, before the sale, he was told that the vehicle had a faulty clutch. The seller offered the buyer with the faulty clutch for 550 pound or said that he could have the clutch repaired before purchase, in which case the car would cost 575 pound. The buyer choose to buy the car as it stood 550 pound, but when he later had the clutch repaired discovered that the repairs cost 45 pound. He brought this action claiming that the seller was in breach the act as the defect was more serious than he had been led believe. The court held that the car was of merchantable quality. The defect has been pointed out to the seller before sale and was not substantially worse than the

buyer had been told. The buyer therefore lost his action. The court in Barletts case in fact said that the second hand cars will be merchantable as long as they are usable, regardless of any other defects.