The key to section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 is interpretation.
![Authors Avatar]()
by
katerriinnaamailru (student)
‘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[1] 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)[2] an implied term states that the goods will correspondent with the description.
The significance of the section 13[3] is that such a term implied is merely a condition under section 13(1A)[4]. This condition is implied only where there is a sale by description. Clearly, section 13[5] 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.[6]
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[7].
In the Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd[8] the Court held that the description must be a term of the contract and not a representation.
In the Oscar Chess Ltd v Williams[9] 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.
In order to satisfy the requirement of the sale by description, the purchaser must buy the goods by description where he simply relies on the description.
If the goods are unascertained goods the buyer has only the seller’s description to rely on.
In the Varley v Whipp[10] the court held that in order for condition under section 13(1A)[11] to apply the goods must be sold by description and not to be seen by the purchaser. The Court held that the concept of section 13[12] should apply to all cases where the purchaser had not seen the ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In order to satisfy the requirement of the sale by description, the purchaser must buy the goods by description where he simply relies on the description.
If the goods are unascertained goods the buyer has only the seller’s description to rely on.
In the Varley v Whipp[10] the court held that in order for condition under section 13(1A)[11] to apply the goods must be sold by description and not to be seen by the purchaser. The Court held that the concept of section 13[12] should apply to all cases where the purchaser had not seen the goods but merely relied on the description given by the seller.
Where the purchaser had examined the goods than such a sale will be regarded as a sale of specific goods. There can be a sale by description even with specific goods if the purchaser had partly relied on a description.
In the Grant v Australian Knitting Mills[13] Lord Wright stated that there was a sale by description: ‘there is a sale by description even though the buyer is buying something displayed before him on the counter; a thing is sold by description, though it is specific, so long as it is sold not merely as the specific thing but as a thing corresponding to a description.’[14]
Relying on this basis, the Court of Appeal in Beale v Taylor[15] held that the plaintiff succeeded in claim against the seller, even if the purchaser had examined the car prior to purchase it. The purchaser relied on the description only and not on his assessment, thus the seller was held liable under section 13[16].
However, the sale is not by description if the purchaser sees the actual goods before the sale, therefore, section 13[17] cannot be relied upon.
In the Harrlington & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd[18] the Court of Appeal held that in this case the goods had not been sold by description and the purchaser had no protection under section 13(1[19]). In this case the buyer relied on his own expertise and not on the term of the contract, thus the term of the contract was not important anymore. Nourse LJ established that the description must have a sufficient influence to become and essential term of the contract as the most important thing is reliance on that term.
In the Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd[20] the House of Lords held that the description identified the goods. Therefore, the goods ‘herring-meal’ was still under the concept of description even though the goods were poisoned. In this case, the implied terms by section 13(1)[21] did not breach the contract. The description might include words relating to the question of the goods, but only to the extent necessary to identify goods. Distinction was made between description and quality and it was mentioned that the description does not necessarily relate to quality.
In order to determine whether the goods correspond with the contractual description it may be necessary to determine the exact scope and meaning of the description.[22]
In the Acros Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son[23] the House of Lords held that, as the majority of the staves had not complied with the description, the term implied by section 13(1)[24] was breached and Ronaasen’s termination of the contract was valid, even though it suffered no actual loss and the staves were perfectly usable.
Re Moore & Co Ltd v Landauer & Co’s Arbitration[25] is now controversial decision. The buyer was allowed to reject 3000 cans of fruit on the basis that they were packed in cartons of 24 tins each instead of the 30 tins stipulated in the contract, despite volume of the goods and their value being unchanged. Therefore, the buyer was entitled to refuse to accept delivery because the seller had committed a breach of condition of section 13[26].
However, the decision in Re Moore & Co Ltd v Landauer & Co’s Arbitraton[27] was doubted by Lord Wilberforce in Reardon Smith line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen Tangen[28], because section 13[29] is an implied condition, anything which is regarded by the court as part of the contract description automatically becomes ‘of the essence’ and, if not complied with, has until recently automatically given to the buyer the right to reject the goods for breach of condition, no matter how slight the breach was. However, this was not a Sale of Goods Act case as sale of a ship is not a classified as good. There was a failure to prove that this case was a descriptive case.
In conclusion, section 13(2)[30] states that goods may be sold by sample and by description, and they must correspondent with the description and the sample as well. Section 13(3) [31]provides that there is a sale by description even where the customer decides which particular goods to select from the display. Implied term in the contract is a condition therefore if there is a breach of that condition, the purchaser is able to terminate the contract with the seller, reject the goods and sue the seller for damages.
Bibliography
The books used:
* Paul Dobson and Dr Robert Stokes, Commercial Law (8th ed. Sweet & Maxwell 2012)
* Woodroffe and Lowe, Consumer Law and Practice (9th ed. Sweet & Maxwell 2013)
* Eric Baskind, Greg Osborne, Lee Roach, Commercial Law (First Published, Oxford University Press 2013)
* Lecture Notes
Online sources:
www.legislation.co.uk
www.legalmix.info
www.e-lawsources.co.uk
Westlaw
Cases used:
* Taylor v Combined Buyers Ltd [1924]
* Oscar Chess v Williams [1957]
* Varley v Whipp [1900]
* Grant v Austalian Knitting Mills [1936]
* Bealer v Taylor [1967]
* Harlington & Leisure Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991]
* Re Moore & Co Ltd v Landauer & Co’s Arbitration [1921]
* Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933]
* Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972]
* Reardon Smith Line v Ingvar Hansen-Tangen [1976]
| Page
________________
[1] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[2] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[3] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[4] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[5] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[6] Legal Dictionary law.com
[7] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[8] [1924] NZLR 627
[9] [1957] 1 WLR 370
[10] [1900] 1 Q.B. 513
[11] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[12] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[13] [1936] AC85 PC
[14] Paul Dobson and Dr Robert Stokes, Consumer Law (Chapter 7-013, p.128)
[15] [1967] 1 WLR 1193 CA
[16] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[17] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[18] [1991] 1 QB 564
[19] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[20] [1972] A.C. 441
[21] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[22] Commercial Law by Paul Dobson and Dr Robert Stokes (Chapter 7-015, p. 129)
[23] [1933] A.C. 470
[24] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[25] [1921] 2 K.B. 519
[26] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[27] [1921] 2 K.B. 519
[28][1976] 1 WLR 989
[29] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[30] Sale of Goods Act 1979
[31] Sale of Goods Act 1979
by
katerriinnaamailru (student)
