The defendant advertised in a motor trade journal, to sell a vehicle, which was ‘in first class condition throughout.’ In the same advertisement was the reference to it being of ’12 yard’ capacity.’ The Act applied differently according to whether a vehicle had been supplied when the contract was made or only upon subsequent delivery. The Court considered the meaning of the word ‘supply’ within the 1968 Act.
Held: The supply occurred when the goods were delivered: ‘one cannot get away from the fact, I think, that when the advertisement was published there was only one lorry of that description in the seller’s possession, and I think that the description was applied to that lorry when the advertisement itself was published. I think that is an example of the trade description being used in a manner likely to be taken as referring to the goods because if there was only one lorry of that description, that fact would indicate to anybody that the trade description applied to that one vehicle.’ and ‘For my part I think that the proper construction of this Act requires supply to be treated here as the date of delivery. I can see that there are arguments which might be advanced for applying the Sale of Goods Act 1893 to this situation and saying that an article is supplied when the property passes by virtue of that Act. But I think . . that that would be an unnecessary and undesirable complication to attach to this already somewhat difficult Act, and I think that the proper meaning of supply in this context is the delivery of the goods as delivered by the seller, or notification that they are available for delivery if they are to be collected by the buyer.’
Judges:
Lord Widgery CJ
Citations:
[1974] 1 WLR 1284
Statutes:
Trade Descriptions Act 1968 1(1)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Interfact Ltd and Another v Liverpool City Council Admn 23-May-2005
The defendants, operators of licensed sex shops, appealed convictions for offences under the Act. The shops had supplied videos rated R*18 by mail order from the shops. The Trading Standards Officer said this did not satisfy the requirement that . .
Cited – Decidebloom Ltd (T/A Stoneacre Motor Group) v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Admn 10-Dec-2008
The defendant brought a case stated in its defence of allegations under the 1968 Act arising from the sale of a Fiat Punto. It was said to have advertised ‘Drive away a new Fiat Punto for a certain price. The car offered was pre-registered. The only . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Consumer
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.225197