swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
Consumer - From: 1900 To: 1929
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
ÂTaylor v Great Eastern Railway Company [1901] 1 KB 774
1901
Bigham J
Contract, Consumer
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, or unless some note or memorandum in writing of the contract be made and signed by the party to be charged or his agent in that behalf." Held: Bigham J said of a contract which failed to meet the requirement: "The contract is good. The only effect of the non-fulfilment of the statutory conditions is that it is unenforceable. And, the contract being good, all the legal consequences of a contract follow; so that, if the contract is for the sale of specific goods, the property in the goods passes to the buyer."
Sale of Goods Act 1893 4(1)
1 Citers
Â
Samuel and Another v Newbold [1906] UKHL 611; 44 SLR 611
17 Jul 1906
HL
Lord Chancellor (Loreburn), Lords Macnaghten, James of Hereford, Robertson, and Atkinson
Banking, Consumer
"Excessive interest of itself is sufficient to render a contract harsh and unconscionable. Proof of excessive interest may of itself, therefore, be sufficient to entitle the debtor to relief. What amounts to excessive interest is to be determined by the tribunal in each case, the question of risk being a material matter for consideration. When excessive interest is apparently established, any facts that tend to show that such excess does not render the contract 'harsh and unconscionable' should be proved in evidence by the lender. The burden is on him."
- Money Lenders Act 1900
[ Bailii ]
Â
Hobbs v Winchester Corporation [1910] 2 KB 471; 26 TLR 557; 102 LT 841; 74 JP 413
1910
CA
Kennedy LJ
Consumer, Crime
Meat had been seized under section 116 of the 1875 Act as unfit for human consumption. Although the butcher was acquitted of any offence under section 117 of that Act, on the grounds that he was unaware that it was unfit for consumption, it was found that he was nonetheless "in default" for the purpose of section 308, so that his claim for compensation failed.
Kennedy LJ said that, "I think there is a clear balance of authority that in construing a modern statute this presumption as to mens rea does not exist".
Public Health Act 1875
1 Citers
Â
Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co Ltd v Fiat Motors Ltd [1910] 2 KB 831
1910
CA
Cozens-Hardy, LJ MR, Farwell LJ
Consumer, Contract
The plaintiff complained after the purchase of a Fiat Omnibus chassis "for the road", to be used for the conveyance of passengers around Bristol, in heavy and hilly traffic conditions. The chassis proved unfit for this purpose on account of breaking-down too often. Held: There was an implied condition that the omnibus should be reasonably fit for the declared purpose. Nevertheless, goods may be reasonably fit for a purpose despite minor defects.
Farwell LJ said: "The phrase in s.14, sub-s.(2), is, in my opinion, used as meaning that the article is of such quality and in such condition that a reasonable man acting reasonably would after a full examination accept it under the circumstances of the case in performance of his offer to buy that article whether he buys for his own use or to sell it again."
Cozens-Hardy, LJ MR considered the proper approach for a court interpreting a codifying statute: "I rather deprecate the citation of earlier decisions . . The object and intent of the statute . . was, no doubt, simply to codify the unwritten law applicable to the sale of goods, but in so far as there is an express statutory enactment, that alone must be looked at and must govern the rights of the parties, even though the section may to some extent have altered the prior common law"
Sale of Goods Act 1897 14(a)
1 Citers
Â
Mellor v Lydiate (1914) 3 KB 1141
1914
Lord Reading CJ
Licensing, Consumer
The appellant brewers owned a public house, whose licencee was their manager. He supplied beer to the respondent, and the appellants were then convicted under the section which, provided that a person "shall not sell… any intoxicating liquor unless he holds a justices licence" Held: The appeal was allowed, but with differing reasons.
Lord Reading CJ: "On behalf of the appellants it was contended that there had been no sale by them within the meaning of the words in section 65, and that in any event their servant, for whose act it was sought to make them responsible under the statute, was the holder of a justices licence, and, therefore, that the requirements of the statute had been met." and "If it were right to construe the section as if we were determining the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of sale it could not be doubted, as a general principle of law, that a sale by a servant authorised in that behalf is a sale by the principal, at least to the extent of imposing upon the latter the burdens and advantages of the contract. But I cannot think that when the Legislature enacted that a justices licence should be required as a condition precedent to the right of selling intoxicating liquor by retail on the licensed premises it intended that every person who might be made liable as a contracting party to a contract of sale must hold a justices licence for such sale notwithstanding that he took no part in the actual conduct of the sale on the premises."
Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910 65(1)
1 Citers
Â
