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 refused to say what the repair had been. The claimant now appealed the refusal of his claim that at the time he had purported to reject the machine, it was in a proper state of repair, and was fit for purpose.
Held: The appeal succeeded. It was proper to imply a term to fill a gap left by the 1979 Act when dealing with returned goods and the loss of the right of rejection. Just what term is to be implied may vary with the circumstances. Until a buyer can be said to have accepted the goods, he has not lost the right to reject them. In this case the nature of the fault was not known to the buyer. He was not in a position to make an informed choice as to whether to accept the goods. The respondents had not behaved in accordance with sensible or reasonable commercial practice by refusing to state the nature of the defect, and that failure was in breach of the terms implied on the machine’s return for inspection.
Judges:
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 9, Times 08-Mar-2007
Links:
Statutes:
Sale of Goods Act 1979 35(6)(a)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – J and H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd SCS 11-Jan-2005
The buyers sought repayment of the sum paid by them for agricultural machinery purchased from the respondent. The machinery was bought after a repossession, but returned when a vibration was found. The defendants repaired the machine, but would not . .
Cited – William Morton and Co v Muir Brothers and Co 1907
Lord McLaren said: ‘The conception of an implied condition is one with which we are familiar in relation to contracts of every description, and if we seek to trace any such implied conditions to their source, it will be found that in almost every . .
Cited – Liverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
Cited – Clegg v Olle Andersson (T/A Nordic Marine) CA 11-Mar-2003
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Contract, Consumer
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249892
