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 within the sphere of expertise of the seller to detect and avoid, the responsibility for their unfitness lies with the seller. Since the facts came within the first exception to section 14 of the Act, the seller fell into breach of the implied condition that it should be reasonably fit for that purpose.
Lord Wright said: ‘ What subsection (2) now means by ‘merchantable quality’ is that the goods in the form in which they were tendered were of no use for any purpose for which such goods would normally be used and hence were not saleable under that description.’
and ‘ . . it has been laid down that where a manufacturer or builder undertakes to produce a finished result according to a design or plan, he may be still bound by his bargain even though he can show an unanticipated difficulty or even impossibility in achieving the result desired with the plans or specification’.
Judges:
Lord Wright
Citations:
[1934] AC 402, [1934] All ER 1, 103 LJKB 289
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – A M Gillespie and Co v John Howden and Co, Et E Contra SCS 7-Mar-1885
A customer ordered from a shipbuilder a ship according to specification, which bore, inter alia, that the ship was ‘to Carry 1800 tons dead weight, including coals, on 14 1/2 feet draught,’ and that a model was to be submitted for purchaser’s . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jewson Limited v Boyhan as Personal Representative of the Estate of Thomas Michael Kelly CA 28-Jul-2003
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: . .
Cited – MT Hojgaard As v EON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Ltd and Another SC 3-Aug-2017
The defendants had requested tenders for the design and construction of an offshore wind farm. The court now considered the situation arising because of inconsistencies between documents in the tender request. The successful tender was based upon an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.187444