Right oReject Survived Attempted Repair
The claimant agreed to purchase a yacht from the defendants with a keel to the manufacturer’s standard specifications. The keel actually installed was rather heavier. After correspondence, the claimant rejected the yacht and required the return of the the purchase price. The respondent said the exercise of a right of rejection was unreasonable, given that the manufacturer had offered to correct the defect.
Held: Though a repair had been undertaken the right to reject had not been lost. The buyer had maintained his demand for information about the defect. Whether or not a buyer has had a reasonable time to inspect the goods is only one of the questions to be answered in ascertaining whether there has been acceptance in accordance with subsection (4). Subsection (6)(a) shows that time taken merely in requesting or agreeing to repairs for carrying them out, is not to be counted. The purchasers’ failure to mitigate their loss became irrelevant when the right of rejection was used. There is no requirement that the exercise of the right of rejection should be subject to any condition of reasonableness.
Lady Justice Hale The Vice-Chancellor Lord Justice Dyson
[2003] EWCA Civ 320, Times 14-Apr-2003, Gazette 22-May-2003, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 32
Bailii
Sale of Goods Act 1979 13(1) 14(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers QBD 1954
In testing whether a buyer of goods has acted inconsistently with the rights of the seller so as to lose the right of rejection where as in this case, property in the goods has passed to the buyer, the ownership of the seller with which the buyer . .
Cited – Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd QBD 1987
A car had been delivered to the buyer three weeks before the purported rejection. In the interval the purchaser had driven it 140 miles.
Held: The nature of the particular defect, discovered ex post facto, and the speed with which it might . .
Appeal from – Clegg and Another v Andersson (Trading As Nordic Marine) QBD 21-May-2002
. .
Cited by:
Cited – J and H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd HL 7-Mar-2007
The appellants had bought a seed drill from the respondents. It had been repossessed but sold as near new. A fault was noticed after two days use, and it was returned. The defendants repaired it without agreeing this with the appellant, and then . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Consumer
Updated: 20 December 2021; Ref: scu.179774