sale of goods act 1979

Authors Avatar

Student no: 0507943

A sale of goods contract refers to an agreement in which the seller or a trader transfers or agrees to transfer property that are goods to the buyer for a money consideration best known as price. Both the seller and the buyer have obligations to one another. The seller’s obligation under the contract must be that he or she agrees to transfer the property to the buyer whereas the buyer’s obligation under the contract is to pay a money consideration, as described by s2 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979

In regards to the s14 of The Sale of Goods Act 1979, the rule of caveat emptor is of great relevance, the buyer must be aware since the vendor does not have to be held liable for the faults in goods sold if the buyer had made a look out to satisfy himself or herself of the goods worthiness. There it is the responsibility of the parties in contract to constitute their own bargain

     However the section does not imply any warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of  sale, unless a warranty or condition is appended by the usage of trade as referred by  s14(3).

The case of Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) ltd [1987] 1 QB 933 furthered the point of Merchantable quality and satisfactory quality under s14 of SOGA 1979 in the fact that the plaintiff’s purpose of buying a car was not merely for the purpose of driving it from one place to another but of doing so with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling, reliability and pride in the vehicle’s outward and interior appearance as applied by Lord Mustill

   The defendants advertised a new Range Rover which is above the level of an ordinary family car at the price of £16,000. s13 of the Sale of Goods Act stresses sale by description as in the case of Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 whereby incase of a sale of goods by description there is an implied condition that the goods ought to correspond with the description. The “sale of goods by description” covers all cases in which the buyer has not seen the goods but is relying on the vendor’s description.Hence, the plaintiff in the Roger’s case depended upon the defendant’s skilful knowledge, although the defendants could not be held liable for breach of s13 since the description of the car was fit, the question came to its quality. The principle that goods can describe themselves was affirmed in the case of Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193.

Join now!

The Sale and Supply OF Goods Act 1994 amended s14 of the SOGA 1979 where the fact of merchantable quality was replaced with satisfactory quality, thus giving the consumer improved rights in the sense that merchantable quality referred to any goods that can be displayed but not  necessarily satisfactory to a consumer.

In the case at hand the amendment made by the Sale and Supply Of Goods Act 1994 cannot be put into much consideration since the Rogers case was in 1981,thus the law to be applied should be from the Sale Of Goods Act 1979 where s14(2) ...

This is a preview of the whole essay