Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a vehicle had been supplied when the contract was made or only upon subsequent delivery. … Continue reading Rees v Munday: QBD 1974
The defendant, who carried on the business of a fisherman, sold his vessel Jelle to the plaintiff with a view to having a new boat built to his requirements. In the event he bought a replacement vessel which he continued to use for his business. The question for the court was whether the sale of … Continue reading Stevenson and Another v Rogers: CA 8 Dec 1998
The section provided that: ‘A contract for the sale of any goods of the value of ten pounds or upwards shall not be enforceable by action unless the buyer shall accept part of the goods so sold, and actually receive the same, or give something in earnest to bind the contract, or in part payment, … Continue reading Taylor v Great Eastern Railway Company: 1901
Shipbuilders agreed to build two ships to carry heavy liquids. They were to have propellers of special construction and diameter according to certain specifications. One proved unsatisfactory because it caused too much noise. Held: If the defect in goods sold which renders them unfit for their purpose is due to a characteristic which it lay … Continue reading Cammell Laird and Co Ltd v Manganese Bronze and Brass Co Ltd: HL 1934
Exclusion Clause Limited The appellants bought seed from the respondents as ‘common English sainfoin’ under the proviso that ‘sellers give no warranty, expressed or implied, as to growth, description, or any other matters.’ The seed turned out to be a different kind, and the appellants, who had re-sold the seed to third parties as common … Continue reading Wallis, Son, and Wells v Pratt and Haynes: HL 5 May 1911
The pursuers contracted to sell certain machinery to the defenders, but the Government Forage department refused to allow it to be moved, and the pursuers. The buyer had sought and been given re-assurance that the machine would not be so required. Held: The pursuers’ appeal succeeded. On the machinery being knocked down to the buyer … Continue reading Shankland and Co v John Robinson and Co: HL 7 May 1920
Citations: [1913] ScotCS CSIH – 4, [1913] SLR 342 Links: Bailii, Bailii Statutes: Sale of Goods Act 1893 Jurisdiction: Scotland Contract Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.279308
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed. Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was accepted as a hazard of late redelivery that the vessel would miss her … Continue reading Transfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia: ComC 1 Dec 2006
The defendant agreed to buy from the plaintiff a self binder reaping machine, which the defendant had not seen, but which the plaintiff told him had been new the previous year and was represented to have only been used to cut 50 or 60 acres. On delivery the machine was rejected by the defendant, who … Continue reading Varley v Whipp: QBD 1900
Mink farmers had asked a compounder of animal foods to make up mink food to a supplied formula. Held: There was reliance as to the suitability of the ingredients only.Lord Diplock said: ‘Unless the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is to be allowed to fossilise the law and to restrict the freedom of choice of … Continue reading Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd: HL 1972
The alleged false trade description was that a car supplied to a garage was ‘new’, as ordered from Fords. Held: (Appeal allowed on other grounds) The effect of the order was that Parkway was seeking the supply from Fords of a ‘new vehicle’. The car that was supplied had in fact earlier been damaged whilst … Continue reading Regina v Ford Motor Company Limited: QBD 1974
Seed potatoes were sold. They were infected with a virus which could not be detected by inspection. The buyers claimed to set off against the cost of the seed potatoes a counter-claim against the sellers for the defective seed. They relied on the 1893 Act. Held: ‘To my mind the contract in clear language places … Continue reading R W Green Ltd v Cade Bros Farms: 1978
A contracted to build and sell, and B to purchase, two ships, which were to be paid for by instalments and built under the supervision of B’s inspector. C arrested the ships when approaching completion for an alleged debt of B’s to him. A petitioned for recal of the arrestments. Held that under the Sale … Continue reading Barclay, Curle and Co Ltd v Sir James Laing and Sons Ltd: HL 25 Nov 1907
A sold a shipload of coal to B for delivery in November at 16s. 3d. per ton. In October B sold to C, in Italy, a corresponding shipload of coals at 19s. per ton. In November C sold to A for 20s. per ton the coal he had bought from B, and ‘ceded the original … Continue reading Williams Brothers v E T Agius Ltd: HL 27 Mar 1914
A sale of farm animals by auction was not made without reserve because the condition of sale reserved to the owner the right to make one offer for each animal. The Lord Ordinary Lord Kyllachy had decided the case both on the grounds that there was a disclosed principal, following Mainprice’s case, and also that … Continue reading Fenwick v MacDonald Fraser and Co: SCS 29 Jun 1904
The sellers had agreed to sell 500 tonnes of bolita beans cif Le Havre. In the event only 445 tonnes were discharged at Le Havre and the remaining 55 tonnes were on-carried to Rotterdam. The documents in respect the 500 tonnes were presented but rejected on the ground that they did not contain a quality … Continue reading Berger and Co Inc v Gill and Duffus SA (No 2): HL 1984
Corbisa sold maize to Pagnan on cif terms, with extensions, the shipment period ended on 22 August 1965. The sellers failed to ship in time. On 21 September 1965 the parties met and the buyers agreed to accept a consignment on a named vessel if satisfied with its condition on arrival at Venice. Part was … Continue reading R Pagnan and Fratelli v Corbisa Industrial Agropacuaria Limitada: CA 1970
The company appealed a finding that it was in breach of the 1979 Act. The deceased had bought boilers from the appellant. They were said not to be satisfactory, in that they were not as energy efficient as they had been described to be. Held: The purchaser himself had skills to assess what he bought … Continue reading Jewson Limited v Boyhan as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Michael Kelly: CA 28 Jul 2003
(New Zealand) The claimants sought damages. The water authority had put in the water supply herbicides which damaged the crops they sought to grow, and which were watered from the supply. The plants were particularly sensitive to such chemicals. Held: Dismissing the company’s appeal, the water supplier had a general duty to supply water to … Continue reading Hamilton v Papakura District Council and Watercare Services Ltd: PC 28 Feb 2002
In a contract between a firm of engineers and the owner of a fishing boat for the supply of a twin-screw set of motor engines, the sellers incorporated certain conditions providing, inter alia, that they should not be liable for ‘any direct or consequential damage arising from defective material or workmanship.’ The buyer having brought … Continue reading Macrae v W and S Pollock and Co: HL 17 Jul 1922
(Note) Old tentage had been sold at such prices as ‘shall be agreed from time to time’ and at such delivery periods as should be similarly agreed. Held: There was a mere agreement to agree and no contract had ever come into existence. Lord Dunedin said: ‘No doubt as to goods, the Sale of Goods … Continue reading May and Butcher Limited v The King: HL 1929
It being found that the plaintiff buyer had not relied on the inaccurate descriptive name for boots purchased, the sale was not one by description. Sellers J (1947) 64 TLR 150 Sale of Goods Act 1893 13 England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd … Continue reading Joseph Travers and Sons Ltd v Longel Ltd: 1947
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act. Held: The challenge failed. The court was to give effect to the intentions of … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance): HL 13 Mar 2003
Contractor not bound to accept Renunciation Mr McGregor contracted with the appellants for them to display advertisements for three years on litter bins. The contract was made on his behalf by an employee, without specific authority. On the day it was made, he sought to cancel the contract. Held: Where a party is in renunciatory … Continue reading White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor: HL 6 Dec 1961
The buyer suppied a food formula to a food mixer and claimed damages when the food mix injured his mink. The defendant argued that the level of damages sought exceeded that expectations of the parties when the contract was entered into. Held: The fact that the extent of the loss occasioned by a breach was … Continue reading Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd: CA 1969
The contract provided that the seller would make good certain defects in workmanship, but the sellers stated: ‘We do not give any other guarantee and we do not accept responsibility for consequential damages.’
Held: The purchaser recovered the . .
The court considered the effect of a breach in a contract for delivery by instalments.
Held: The chief considerations are first, the ratio quantitatively which the breach bears to the contract as a whole, and secondly, the degree of . .
The plaintiff had purchased quantities of turkey feed from the defendant. It contained a poisonous element, spores of a fungus aspergillus flavus, which killed its flock. The House was asked as to the effect of section 14 of the 1893 Act on the . .
References: [1968] UKHL 3, [1969] 2 AC 31 Links: Bailii Coram: Lord Reid, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Guest, Lord Pearce, Lord Wilberforce The plaintiff had purchased quantities of turkey feed from the defendant. It contained a poisonous element, spores of a fungus aspergillus flavus, which killed its flock. The House was asked as to … Continue reading Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural and Poultry Producers Association Ltd: HL 8 May 1968
A joint tenancy was severed (under the former law) on the event of an act of bankruptcy, and not only by the later actual adjudication of bankruptcy. The vesting of the debtor’s property in the trustee which occurred on adjudication was automatic; the trustee had no choice in the matter. ‘the debtor’s interest in the … Continue reading Re Dennis (A Bankrupt): CA 22 May 1995
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums advanced, saying he need not return it because the contract was for an … Continue reading Patel v Mirza: SC 20 Jul 2016
The claimant had supplied clothing to the defendant under a contract containing a retention of title clause. The defendant fell into financial difficulties and administration. The claimant now sought damages for conversion of its goods by the defendant and the administrators. The claimant appealed against an order which found that the defendants had had authority … Continue reading Sandhu (T/A Isher Fashions UK) v Jet Star Retail Ltd and Others: CA 19 Apr 2011
The claimant government sought the return to it of historical artefacts in the possession of the defendants. The defendant said the claimant could not establish title and that if it could the title under which the claim was made was punitive and not to be applied by English law. Held: It is necessary for a … Continue reading Iran v The Barakat Galleries Ltd: QBD 29 Mar 2007
‘Negotiable’, when used in relation to a bill of lading, means simply transferable. A negotiable bill of lading is not negotiable in the strict sense; it cannot, as can be done by the negotiation of a bill of exchange, give to the transferee a better title than the transferor has got, but it can by … Continue reading Kum and Another v Wah Tat Bank Ltd: HL 1971
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the application, and now appealed its refusal. Held: The court restated the practice on the making of … Continue reading Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: CA 1 Mar 2005
A joint tortfeasor could escape liability in contribution proceedings if it had been unsuccessfully sued by the injured person in an action brought outside the relevant limitation period. Where a court has to decide between two competing cases, if the arguments are fairly evenly balanced that interpretation should be chosen which involves the least alteration … Continue reading Wimpey (George) Co Ltd v British Overseas Airways Corporation: HL 1954
The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging racial discrimination, but the only element of her claim which succeeded was of … Continue reading Hounga v Allen and Another: SC 30 Jul 2014
The buyer bought 30lbs of cabbage seed, but the seed was not correct, and the crop was worthless. The seed cost pounds 192, but the farmer lost pounds 61,000. The seed supplier appealed the award of the larger amount and interest, saying that their contract limited their liability to the cost of the seed. Held: … Continue reading George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd: CA 29 Sep 1982
Banker’s Liability for Negligent Reference The appellants were advertising agents. They were liable themselves for advertising space taken for a client, and had sought a financial reference from the defendant bankers to the client. The reference was negligent, but the bankers denied any assumption of a duty of care to a third party when purely … Continue reading Hedley Byrne and Co Ltd v Heller and Partners Ltd: HL 28 May 1963
Decomposed Snail in Ginger Beer Bottle – Liability The appellant drank from a bottle of ginger beer manufactured by the defendant. She suffered injury when she found a half decomposed snail in the liquid. The glass was opaque and the snail could not be seen. The drink had been bought for her by a friend, … Continue reading Donoghue (or M’Alister) v Stevenson: HL 26 May 1932
Rylands does not apply to Statutory Works The claimant laid a large gas main through an embankment. A large water supply pipe nearby broke, and very substantial volumes of water escaped, causing the embankment to slip, and the gas main to fracture. Held: The rule in Rylands v Fletcher continues to exist as a remedy … Continue reading Transco plc v Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council: HL 19 Nov 2003
An order was made in interpleader proceedings that the sheriff should sell the goods seized and pay the claimant, the execution creditor undertaking to make good any deficiency on sale. There was a deficiency, and the master ordered that the execution creditor should pay the amount to the claimant. Default being made in payment, an … Continue reading Buckley v Crawford: QBD 1 Dec 1892
Disapplication of Without Prejudice Rules The House was asked whether a letter sent during without prejudice negotiations which acknowledged a debt was admissible to restart the limitation period. An advice centre, acting for the borrower had written, in answer to a claim by the lender for the sum still due after the sale of the … Continue reading Bradford and Bingley Plc v Rashid: HL 12 Jul 2006
Cargo owners sought damages for their cargo which had been damaged aboard the ship. The contract had been endorsed with additional terms. That variation may have changed the contract from a charterer’s to a shipowner’s bill. Held: The specific terms added prevailed over the standard terms printed on the bill of lading. The bill was … Continue reading Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Private Ltd (the ‘Starsin’): HL 13 Mar 2003
Duty Arising to Use Ordinary Care and Skill The plaintiff was a painter. His employer engaged to repaint a ship, and the defendant erected staging to support the work. The staging collapsed because one of the ropes was singed and weakened, injuring the plaintiff. Held: The defendant had invited the plaintiff on to the land, … Continue reading Heaven v Pender, Trading As West India Graving Dock Company: CA 30 Jul 1883
The plaintiffs had recently acquired the ship the ‘Hong Kong Fir’ and contracted to charter it to the defendants, but being late in delivering it, the defendants cancelled the charterparty contract. The plaintiffs said the repudiation was wrongful, and that the ship was fit to charter. Held: ‘authority over many decades and reason support the … Continue reading Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd: CA 20 Dec 1961
Unilateral Contract Liability The defendants advertised ‘The Carbolic Smoke Ball,’ in the Pall Mall Gazette, saying ‘pounds 100 reward will be paid by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two … Continue reading Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co: CA 7 Dec 1892
Feedstuff was sold by some merchants to a farmer. It was found to be defective. The farmer sued the merchants. The merchants brought in as third party the persons from whom they had purchased the feeding-stuff; they in their turn brought in their suppliers, and there was a long list of many parties brought in … Continue reading Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Association: CA 1966
There was an issue whether or not the purchase by the plaintiff of a second-hand car was made ‘in the course of a business’ so as to preclude the plaintiff from relying upon the provisions of the 1977 Act.
Held: Speaking of Lord Keith’s . .
