‘The key to section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is interpretation. Nonetheless, even descriptive words that at common law would be regarded as mere representation may fall within the description of the goods within section 13.’
This question requires the consideration of the rules relating to the sale of goods by description in section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
Under section 61 goods are defined as all personal chattels other things in action and money, and all moveable goods.
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 is a key in Consumer law in the UK, which sets out the rules that the sellers must satisfy when selling products.
The Act implies terms into the contract and protects the buyer regarding to the goods supplied.
Under section 13(1) an implied term states that the goods will correspondent with the description.
The significance of the section 13 is that such a term implied is merely a condition under section 13(1A). This condition is implied only where there is a sale by description. Clearly, section 13 applies where the buyer had relied on the description of the goods.
The Latin phrase de minimis lex non curat describes the general rule of the common law, which states that the law is not concerned with the trivial.
Section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applies to contracts for the sale of goods of all kind and binds private and business sellers.
In order to bring a claim for breach of the implied terms in the contract there must be sale of goods by description under section 13.
In the Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd the Court held that the description must be a term of the contract and not a representation.
In the Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams the Court of Appeal held that the statement about the age of the car was a mere representation. Also, the court added that Oscar Chess was a car dealer and was in a better position with a better knowledge of the cars than the defendant.