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 tell the claimants what had been repaired, and the claimants, fearing that other parts of the machine would have been damaged, rejected it. The defendant said that having had it repaired, they had lost the right of rejection. They appealed refusal of their claim.
Held: Lord Marnoch (dissenting) said that having acquired a right to reject the goods at the time of delivery, they could not have that right taken away from them simply by the renewed tendering of the goods in an allegedly repaired condition. Lord Hamilton and Lord Philip said that on repair the harrow was rendered fit for its purpose and, once re-associated with the power drill, the equipment was, as a whole, of satisfactory quality. At the stage when the appellants declined to receive the repaired harrow and sought to treat the contract as repudiated the respondents were not in breach of contract.
Lords Marnoch, Hamilton and Philip, Lord Marnoch dissenting
 ScotCS CSIH – 3, 2005 SLT 64
Sale of Goods Act 1979 27 35(6)(a), Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994 2(1)
Appeal from – 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 . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 January 2021; Ref: scu.221461