By reference to case law evaluate the ability of a consumer to reject poor quality goods under the sale of goods act 1979 and recent reforms

Every consumer transaction is based on the law of contract. The consumer is agreeing to purchase goods or services and the seller in return is to provide them. The sale of goods act 1979 as amended by the sale and supply of goods act. Is the major act that governs the all transactions where ‘goods’ are transferred for a monetary consideration called price.

Under one section of the sale of goods act it states that the goods must be of satisfactory quality, (this used to be merchantable quality but was amended in 1994). Satisfactory quality is defined in section 14(2A). It states that… goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant), and all other relevant circumstances. Section 14(2B) states that the quality of goods includes their state and condition. Some examples of the quality of goods are, they should be fit for all purposes for which the goods are supplied; their appearance and finish should be of reasonable quality, they should be free from minor defects, they should be safe and have a goods relative durability.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Should a good be new or have an appearance defect on it the goods can be held to be poor quality and rejected. Though with new goods the question often arises about how long the new good is expected to last for; this doesn’t have a definition and must be decided from case to case. However in the case of Berstein v Pamson Motors (1987) a new Nissan car was purchased for cash by a Mr Bernstein. After three weeks and some 140 miles he was driving his car along the motorway when the engine ‘seized up’. The reason for this was that a drop of sealant, which had got into the lubrication system when the car was being assembled. It was held that the car was not of merchantable quality. A consumer who purchases a new car is entitled to expect that the engine will not seize up after 3 weeks. Concerning appearance in Rogers v Parish (1987) a car was purchased under conditional sale agreement. On delivery there were defects in the engine, gearbox and bodywork and the oil seals were unsound. The plaintiff drove the car for 6months, constantly complaining, but managed to clock up 5,500 miles. At the end of 6 months faults still remained in the gearbox, engine and bodywork. On the question of the bodywork defects and class of comfort to be expected interior wise form a new car, the court of appeal said that appearance defects in a new car, can, depending on the price and the standard expected, render a car (and now all goods) to be of unsatisfactory quality. Thus in the parish case the car was not of satisfactory quality. In this case the court of appeal tried to answer 2 questions, which are of relevance to satisfactory quality…

If the defect can be repaired does this mean that the car is of satisfactory quality? The answer was NO.
What about the effect of the manufacturers warranty? The answer was NO, as the warranty could only increase expectations, and certainly couldn’t diminish them.

Second hand goods can also be rejected should they be of unsatisfactory quality, however age and price are also taken into consideration. For example in the case of Bartlett v Sidney Marcus (1965) the plaintiff purchased a second hand Jaguar for £950. He was told the clutch needed small repair. However after the car had been driven for 300 miles the car required a new clutch, costing £84. It was held that the car was of merchantable quality as a clutch defect would be is the kind that could be anticipated on a second hand car.

However in the case of Crowther v Shannon Motor Co (1975) again the car involved was a second hand Jag purchased for £390. The car had travelled for 82,000 miles, was driven a further 2,5000 miles in 3 weeks when the engine seized up. The court of appeal said the car should have lasted longer than that when considering the cars age and mileage therefore there was a reach of satisfactory quality.

Section 14(2C)(a) says that goods must be of satisfactory quality unless the defect has been specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made. It then goes on to say that if a buyer notices a defect that hasn’t been drawn to her or her attention by the seller then, it is as if it has and there would be no breach of warrantee as in the case of R. & B. customs Brokers Ltd v UDT (1988) whereby the purchaser was aware of the fact that his second hand Shogun had a leaky roof. This defect could never be repaired. The court of appeal ruled there was no breach of section 14(2) as to merchantable quality because the plaintiff knew of the defect though it was not shown to him.

Lastly the sale of goods act states that it doesn’t matter how careful the defendant is in checking his stock, if he sells defective goods he is liable, as in the case of Frost v Aylesbury Dairy (1905). Section 14 creates liability, and it is the retailer who is liable to the buyer, and even if the retailer chooses to join another party into the proceedings the consumer still has the ability so reject goods if they are unsatisfactory or defective.

By Ford-Western 13L