The plaintiff appealed against rejection of his claim that the car he had bought from the defendant was not of merchantable quality. The goods were a Range Rover bought for a sum in excess of pounds 14,000.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Goods which were defective on delivery were not to be taken to be of merchantable quality for the purpose of section 14 of the 1979 Act by reason only of the fact that the defects had not destroyed the workable character of the goods. It was not relevant to whether the goods had been of merchantable quality upon delivery that the defects had subsequently been repaired; that in respect of any passenger vehicle the purpose for which goods of that kind were commonly bought would include not only the purchaser’s purpose in driving it but that of doing so with the degree of comfort, ease of handling, reliability and pride in its appearance appropriate for the market at which the vehicle was aimed; that defects which might be acceptable in a second hand vehicle and which would not therefore render it unmerchantable were not reasonably to be expected in a vehicle sold as new; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to repudiate the contracts since the vehicle was not as fit for its purpose as the plaintiffs were entitled to expect.
The standard of merchantable quality to be achieved under the 1979 Act depends on the market at which the product is aimed and that deficiencies might be acceptable in a product which is being sold as second-hand.
Mustill LJ said: ‘This being so, I think it legitimate to look at the whole issue afresh with direct reference to the words of section 14(6). Starting with the purpose for which ‘goods of that kind’ are commonly bought, one would include in respect of any passenger vehicle not merely the buyer’s purpose of driving the car from one place to another but of doing so with the appropriate degree of comfort, ease of handling and reliability and, one might add, of pride in the vehicle’s outward and interior appearance. What is the appropriate degree and what relative weight is to be attached to one characteristic of the car rather than another will depend on the market at which the car is aimed.
To identify the relevant expectation one must look at the factors listed in the subsection. The first is the description applied to the goods. In the present case the vehicle was sold as new. Deficiencies which might be acceptable in a secondhand vehicle were not to be expected in one purchased as new. Next, the description ‘Range Rover’ would conjure up a particular set of expectations, not the same as those relating to an ordinary saloon car, as to the balance between performance, handling, comfort and resilience. The factor of price was also significant. At more than andpound;14,000 this vehicle was, if not at the top end of the scale, well above the level of the ordinary family saloon. The buyer was entitled to value for his money.
With these factors in mind, can it be said that the Range Rover as delivered was as fit for the purpose as the buyer could reasonably expect? The point does not admit of elaborate discussion. I can only say that to my mind the defects in engine, gearbox and bodywork, the existence of which is no longer in dispute, clearly demand a negative answer.’
Mustill, Woolf LJJ, Sir Edward Eveleigh
[1987] QB 933
Sale of Goods Act 1979 13 14(6)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stewart v Perth and Kinross Council HL 1-Apr-2004
The claimant challenged refusal of a licence to sell second hand cars, saying that the licensing requirements imposed were outwith the Act under which they had been made. The licensing scheme imposed additional requirements.
Held: Though a . .
Cited – Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd CA 15-Dec-1989
The defendant auctioneer sold a painting to the plaintiff which turned out to be a forgery. The plaintiff appealed against a finding that it had not relied upon the attribution, saying that there had been a breach of the requirement that the paintig . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Consumer
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.195464
