• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/145

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

145 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
When must sales of goods be in writing?

When they are on credit, and fall under the Consumer Credit Act 1974)

Are exchange of goods covered by SOGA79?

No, at least a nominal value of money must be included

SOGA79 Section 8


If no price is implied, the buyer must pay a reasonable price


(Foley v Classique Coaches (1934))


Foley v Classique Coaches (1934)

SOGA79 Section 8


If no price is implied, the buyer must pay a reasonable price


SOGA79 Section 12(1)


It is implied that the seller has the right to sell the goods


(Rowland v Divall (1923))

SOGA79 Section 27

There is a basic obligation to deliver the goods


Rowland v Divall (1923)

SOGA79 Section 12(1)


It is implied that the seller has the right to sell the goods


-After a few months it was discovered that a car was stolen. Rowland was entitled to a full refund

SOGA79 Section 12(2)


It is implied that the goods are free from any charge or encumbrance


(Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Making Ltd (1975))


(Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000))


Microbeads v Vinhurst Road Making Ltd (1975)

SOGA79 Section 12(2)


It is implied that the goods are free from any charge or encumbrance


-Shortly after a sale, a third party obtained a patent preventing the buyer from using the goods. He was entitled to damages

Rubicon Computer Systems Ltd v United Paints Ltd (2000)

SOGA79 Section 12(2)


It is implied that the goods are free from any charge or encumbrance


-Rubicon supplied computers, but installed an immobilising device, which they used during a dispute. United Paints were entitled to a refund

SOGA79 Sections 13(3) and (5)

The seller can only transfer such rights as he possesses

SOGA79 Section 13(1)

There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition


(Harlingdon & Leinster Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1991))


(Beale v Taylor (1967))


(Re Moore and Co v Landauer and Co (1921))


(Arcos v Ronaason & Sons (1933))

Harlingdon & Leinster Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1991)

SOGA79 Section 13(1)


There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition


-Buyers of a Munter painting were experts, so could not rely on SOGA79 when it turned out to be a fake

Beale v Taylor (1967)

SOGA79 Section 13(1)


There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition


-A car turned out to be two different models welded together. The buyer had relied on the advert, so could claim under SOGA79

Re Moore and Co v Landauer and Co (1921)

SOGA79 Section 13(1)


There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition


-Tins of peaches were ordered in cases of 30 tins, but half was packed in cases of 24 tins. The buyer was entitled to reject the whole order

Arcos v Ronaason & Sons (1933)

SOGA79 Section 13(1)


There is an implied condition that the goods shall meet the description, but the buyer must rely on the description for it to become a condition


-Some staves ordered 1/2 inch thick were delivered 9/16 inch. The buyer could reject the whole order

SOGA79 Section 15A

In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty


(Peter Darlington and Partners v Gosho Ltd (1964))


(Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (1976))

Peter Darlington and Partners v Gosho Ltd (1964)

SOGA79 Section 15A


In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty


-Seeds ordered pure were only 98% pure. The buyer could not reject the order

Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen (1976)

SOGA79 Section 15A


In non-consumer sales, if the breach of description is slight, it may only be considered a breach of warranty


-A contract stated that a ship was to be built in 'yard 354'. It wasn't, but met all other requirements. The buyer couldn't reject it

SOGA79 Section 14(2)

There is an implied condition that goods are of satisfactory quality in the course of business


(Stevenson v Rogers (1999))

SOGA79 Section 14(3)

There is an implied condition that the goods are fit for purpose in the course of business



Stevenson v Rogers (1999)

SOGA79 Section 14(2)


There is an implied condition that goods are of satisfactory quality in the course of business


-A boat was not of satisfactory quality

In private sales, who is responsible for the risk of satisfactory quality?

The buyer

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)

More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


(Millars of Falkirk v Turpie (1976))


(Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987))


(Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd (1965))


(Trac-Time Control Ltd v Moss Plastic Parts Ltd and others (2004))


(Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd (1988))


(Bramhill v Edwards (2004))

Millars of Falkirk v Turpie (1976)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)


More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-Faulty power steering was not enough to reject a car under the old Act

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)


More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-An expensive car started to rust within six months. The buyer was entitled to reject it

Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd (1965)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)


More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-A buyer was warned of a defective clutch, so couldn't reject the car on that basis

Trac-Time Control Ltd v Moss Plastic Parts Ltd and others (2004)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-Plastic mouldings produced broken floodlights. The mouldings manufacturer was liable

Shine v General Guarantee Corp Ltd (1988)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)


More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-A car was discovered to have previously been written off for water damage. The buyer could reject it

Bramhill v Edwards (2004)

SOGA79 Sections 14(2A) and (2B)


More protection is now given to buyers regarding satisfactory quality


-A motor home was 2 inches wider than UK regulations. This was not sufficient for the buyer to reject it

Sellers will not be liable for damage caused by mistreatment, eg...

Aswan Engineering Establishment Co Ltd v Lupdine Ltd (1987)

Aswan Engineering Establishment Co Ltd v Lupdine Ltd (1987)

Sellers will not be liable for damage caused by mistreatment


-Pails to store water were kept in bright sunshine and high temperatures, so split. The seller was not liable

SOGA79 Section 14(2C)

A buyer does not have to examine goods before buying, but will lose the right to complain if a seller points out the fault before purchase

SOGA79 Section 14(3)

There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


(Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936))


(Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939))


(Slater v Finning Ltd (1996))


(Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1971))


(Jewson Ltd v Kelly (2003))

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

SOGA79 Section 14(3)


There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


-Underpants caused dermatitis. The seller was liable, as the buyer had made it clear that they were to be worn against skin

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939)

SOGA79 Section 14(3)


There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


-A coat caused dermatitis, but the buyer did not make it know that she suffered from very sensitive skin. The seller wasn't liable

Slater v Finning Ltd (1996)

SOGA79 Section 14(3)


There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


-A camshaft was unsuitable for a certain boat. The seller was not liable

Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1971)

SOGA79 Section 14(3)


There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


-Food bought for minks poisoned them. The seller was liable, as the buyer had relied on their skill

Jewson Ltd v Kelly (2003)

SOGA79 Section 14(3)


There is an implied condition that goods sold in business must be fit for the purpose that the buyer makes known


-Boilers relied on peak time electricity, which the buyer could not afford. The seller was not liable

SOGA79 Section 15

There is an implied condition that the bulk must correspond to the sample


(Godley v Perry (1960))

Godley v Perry (1960)

SOGA79 Section 15


There is an implied condition that the bulk must correspond to the sample


-A catapult worked in a sample, but broke when actually sold. The seller was liable

SOGA79 Section 15(A)

In non-consumer sales, if the breach between sample and bulk us only slight, it may be regarded as a breach of warranty rather than condition

SOGA79 Section 17

Ownership of specific goods passes when the parties intend

SOGA79 Section 18

If no point is implied for the transfer of ownership, there are four rules for the transfer of specific goods, and one for unascertained goods

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1

If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made


(Tarling v Baxter (1827))


(Dennant v Skinner and Collom (1948))

Tarling v Baxter (1827)

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1


If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made


-A haystack burnt down after the sale but before delivery. The buyer was liable

Dennant v Skinner and Collom (1948)

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 1


If the goods are in a deliverable state, ownership passes when the contract is made


-A document signed after a sale that stated ownership would not transfer until a cheque cleared was too late to be valid

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 2

If the goods are not in a deliverable state, ownership passes when they have been put in such state, and the buyer has been informed

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 3

If the goods must be weighed or measured by the seller, ownership passes once this has been done and the seller informed

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 4

If goods are delivered 'on approval', ownership passes when the buyer approves the transaction, or after a reasonable time


(Elphick v Barnes (1880))

Elphick v Barnes (1880)

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 4


If goods are delivered 'on approval', ownership passes when the buyer approves the transaction, or after a reasonable time


-A horse was sold on 'approval for eight days'. It died on the third day, so the seller was liable

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5

Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated


(Healy v Howlett (1917))


(Phillip Head and Sons v Showfronts Ltd (1970))

Healy v Howlett (1917)

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5


Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated


-A railway company was to allocate boxes of fish to various customers during delivery. The train was delayed and the fish went off. The seller was liable

Phillip Head and Sons v Showfronts Ltd (1970)

SOGA79 Section 18 Rule 5


Ownership of unascertained goods passes when they are unconditionally appropriated


-Carpets were stolen before fitting. The seller was liable, as the customer had ordered FITTED carpets

SOGA79 Section 16

Ownership of unascertained goods will not pass until they have been ascertained

SOGA79 Section 19

The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title


(Aluminium Industrie Vaassen v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd (1976))


(Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd (1981))


(Pfeiffer W-W Gmb/h v Arbuthnot Factors (1988))


(Re: Peachdart Ltd (1983))

Aluminium Industrie Vaassen v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd (1976)

SOGA79 Section 19


The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title


-Foil was subject to a ROT clause, but was only applicable to unmixed foil



Borden (UK) Ltd v Scottish Timber Products Ltd (1981)

SOGA79 Section 19


The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title


-Resin was subject to a ROT clause, but this was not valid once the resin had been used in chipboard

Pfeiffer W-W Gmb/h v Arbuthnot Factors (1988)

SOGA79 Section 19


The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title


-An attempt to hold funds in trust as a charge on assets was rejected

Re: Peachdart Ltd (1983)

SOGA79 Section 19


The seller can reserve a right on the goods, such as retention of title


-A ROT clause on leather was not valid once it had been made into handbags

SOGA79 Section 20(1)

Risk passes with ownership


(Tarling v Baxter (1827))

SOGA79 Section 20(2)

If delivery has been delayed, risk lies with the party at fault


(Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden (1949))

Demby Hamilton & Co Ltd v Barden (1949)

SOGA79 Section 20(2)


If delivery has been delayed, risk lies with the party at fault


-A buyer delayed taking delivery of apple juice, so was liable when the juice deteriorated

SOGA79 Section 20(4)

In consumer sales, risk remains with the seller until delivery

SOGA79 Sections 20(A) and (B)

A buyer can't own shares of a bulk if the bulk is unidentified


(Re Wait (1927))

Re Wait (1927)

SOGA79 Sections 20(A) and (B)


A buyer can't own shares of a bulk if the bulk is unidentified

SOGA79 Section 6

Sellers are protected when specific goods have perished without their knowledge, as the contract will be void


(Asfar & Co Ltd v Blundell (1896))

Asfar & Co Ltd v Blundell (1896)

SOGA79 Section 6


Sellers are protected when specific goods have perished without their knowledge, as the contract will be void


-Dates had sunk and when retrieved were a sodden pulp. The contract was void

SOGA79 Section 7

If specific goods perish after a contract is made, but before delivery, the contract is frustrated

SOGA79 Section 21

Only the owner of goods is able to sell them
If the true owner of goods confirms in any way that the seller has a right to sell them, they will be estopped from later denying it, eg...

Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring (1957)
Eastern Distributors Ltd v Goldring (1957)

SOGA79 Section 21


If the true owner of goods confirms in any way that the seller has a right to sell them, they will be estopped from later denying it


-Murphy gave a dealer the registration to his van to part-exchange. The dealer sold it without getting the new car


Estoppel does not apply to an agreement to sell if no money has passed hands, eg...

Shaw v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (1987)


Shaw v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (1987)

SOGA79 Section 21


Estoppel does not apply to an agreement to sell if no money has passed hands


-A rogue obtained a car registration and sold the car, but disappeared before being paid. The sale was not binding

SOGA79 Section 21(2)


Sales by a mercantile agent are binding unless the buyer is aware of a lack of authority


(Folkes v King (1923))

Folkes v King (1923)

SOGA79 Section 21(2)


Sales by a mercantile agent are binding unless the buyer is aware of a lack of authority


-An agent had authority to sell a car for a minimum price, but sold below this. The sale was binding

SOGA79 Section 23

Goods obtained through a void contract can't be resold, but can be if it was a voidable contract that hasn't yet been put aside

SOGA79 Section 24

If a seller re-sells goods to an innocent third party, the third party will take valid ownership on delivery
SOGA79 Section 25


A buyer re-selling goods will be binding even if they were originally obtained by deception


(Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams (1964))


...but not if the goods were originally stolen


(National Employers Mutual Insrance v Jones (1990))

Newtons of Wembley Ltd v Williams (1964)

SOGA79 Section 25


A buyer re-selling goods will be binding even if they were originally obtained by deception


-A car bought with a worthless cheque was resold. The resale was valid

National Employers Mutual Insrance v Jones (1990)

SOGA79 Section 25


Re-sale of goods will not be binding if they were stolen


-A van was stolen and then sold on several times. The original owner sued for return of the van

Sale of a vehicle subject to an existing hire purchase agreement will give a consumer good title, but not a business, eg...

GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Jenking (2005)


GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Jenking (2005)

Sale of a vehicle subject to an existing hire purchase agreement will give a consumer good title, but not a business


-Rushton bought 13 cars subject to hire purchase, and sold one for private use to Jenking. Jenking gained ownership, but Rushton did not

What does 'nemo dat quod non habet' mean?

No one can give that which he has not got

SOGA79 Section 27

The seller is obliged to deliver the goods, and the buyer is obliged to pay for them

SOGA79 Section 28

Payment and delivery are concurrent conditions

SOGA79 Section 29(2)


Unless otherwise agreed, the buyer must collect from the seller's place of business




SOGA79 Section 32

Delivery to a carrier will suffice for the seller's obligation
If a delivery time is agreed, time is assumed to be of the essence, eg...



Bowes v Shand (1877)

Bowes v Shand (1877)

SOGA79 Section 29


If a delivery time is agreed, time is assumed to be of the essence


-Rice was ordered for March. 7/8 was shipped in February, so the buyer was entitled to reject the order

SOGA79 Section 29(3)

If no time is agreed, delivery must be within a reasonable time

SOGA79 Section 37

If a buyer fails to take delivery within a reasonable time, he is liable for any loss

SOGA79 Section 29

Delivery includes physical goods, keys and/or documents of title

SOGA79 Section 8

If the price is not set, the buyer is obliged to pay a reasonable price

SOGA79 Section 30


The buyer may reject the entire delivery if the amount is more or less than agreed, but minute deviations won't apply


(Shipton Anderson & Co Ltd v Weil Bros & Co Ltd (1912))


Shipton Anderson & Co Ltd v Weil Bros & Co Ltd (1912)

SOGA79 Section 30


The buyer may reject the entire delivery if the amount is more or less than agreed, but minute deviations won't apply


-4,950 tons of wheat were order, but 4,950 tons and 55 pounds were delivered. The seller could not reject the order

SOGA79 Section 31(1)


Buyers don't have to accept delivery by instalments unless previously agreed

SOGA79 Section 31(2)


If a contract is severable, the buyer may only be able to claim damages for missed delivery instalments, rather than repudiate the whole contract


(Maple Flock Co Ltd v Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd (1934))


(Robert A Munro & Co Ltd v Meyer (1930))

Maple Flock Co Ltd v Furniture Products (Wembley) Ltd (1934)

SOGA79 Section 31(2)


If a contract is severable, the buyer may only be able to claim damages for missed delivery instalments, rather than repudiate the whole contract


-100 tons of bricks were deliverable by instalment. The first 15 deliveries were acceptable, as were 17-20th, but the 16th was not. The buyer could not repudiate the contract

Robert A Munro & Co Ltd v Meyer (1930)

SOGA79 Section 31(2)


If a contract is severable, the buyer may only be able to claim damages for missed delivery instalments, rather than repudiate the whole contract


-1500 tons of bone and meal were ordered, but the first 651 tons contained cocoa husk. The buyer could repudiate the contract

SOGA79 Section 35(1)(b)

Acceptance occurs if the buyer does anything with the goods inconsistent with ownership of the seller, or after a reasonable time

(Clegg v Ollie Andersson (2003))

SOGA79 Section 36

The buyer has no duty to return rejected goods

SOGA79 Section 35(3)

Any agreement to prevent the right to examine goods is void

SOGA79 Section 35(6)

Acceptance is not made when a buyer asks for a repair to the goods


(J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (2007))

Clegg v Ollie Andersson (2003)

SOGA79 Section 35


Acceptance occurs if the buyer does anything with the goods inconsistent with ownership of the seller, or after a reasonable time


- A boat keel was overweight, and it took the buyer three weeks to reject it. This was not unreasonable

J&H Ritchie Ltd v Lloyd Ltd (2007)

SOGA79 Section 35(6)


Acceptance is not made when a buyer asks for a repair to the goods


-A drill was faulty on delivery and returned for repair. When repaired, the buyer was still concerned and rejected it. He was entitled to do so

SOGA79 Section 49

In the event of non-payment, the seller can sue for the contract price


(Colley v Overseas Exporters Ltd (1921))

Colley v Overseas Exporters Ltd (1921)

SOGA79 Section 49


In the event of non-payment, the seller can sue for the contract price


-Goods were sold FOB, but because no ship was ascertained, so title didn't pass and the seller could not sue for price

SOGA79 Section 50

If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance (calculated on the market price)


(WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd (1955))


(Charter v Sullivan (1957))

WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd (1955)

SOGA79 Section 50


If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance


-A car was wrongly rejected, so the seller could claim the contract price (there was no market)

Charter v Sullivan (1957)

SOGA79 Section 50


If ownership of the goods has not passed, the seller can seeks damages for non-acceptance


-A car was wrongly rejected, but the seller could only claim nominal damages because there was plenty of demand elsewhere

SOGA79 Section 41

Lien is the seller's right to withhold delivery as long as they still have possession

SOGA79 Section 44

Stoppage in transit is only available if the buyer becomes insolvent

SOGA79 Section 48

The seller has a right to resell if the goods are perishable, or if notice is given when a buyer fails to pay within a reasonable time

SOGA79 Sections 51-53

A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition


(Jones v Gallagher and Gallagher (2005))


(Lee v York Coach and Marine Ltd (1977))


(Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987))

Jones v Gallagher and Gallagher (2005)

SOGA79 Sections 51-53


A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition


-The right to reject a kitchen was lost because they waited until work was complete

Lee v York Coach and Marine Ltd (1977)

SOGA79 Sections 51-53


A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition


-Brakes on a second-hand car were discovered to be faulty in March, but only gave notice in September so lost the right to reject

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987))

SOGA79 Sections 51-53


A buyer can sue for damages for breach of a condition or warranty, but can only reject the goods for a breach of condition


-An expensive car started to rust within six months. The buyer was entitled to reject it

SOGA79 Section 52

Specific performance is only usually available if the goods are unique


(Cohen v Roche (1927))

Cohen v Roche (1927)

SOGA79 Section 52


Specific performance is only usually available if the goods are unique


-The seller failed to deliver Hepplewhite furniture. It was rare, but not unique, so specific performance was not granted

SOGASA82 Section 2

There is an implied condition that the transferor has the right to sell the goods, and the implied warranties that there are no third party rights and that the transferee will enjoy quiet possession

SOGASA82 Section 3

There is an implied condition that the goods will match the description

SOGASA82 Section 4

There is an implied condition that the goods are of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose

SOGASA82 Section 5

The is an implied condition that the bulk will correspond to the sample

SOGASA82 Section 7

There is an implied condition that the bailor is entitled to transfer possession (hire), and an implied warranty that the hiree has the right to quiet possession. This section can be excluded if reasonable

SOGASA82 Section 8

The is an implied condition that hire goods will match the description

SOGASA82 Section 9

There are implied conditions that hired goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose

SOGASA82 Section 10

There is an implied condition that the bulk of hired goods will correspond to the sample

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


(Wilson v Best Travel Ltd (1993))


(Midland Bank Trust Co v Hett Stubbs and Co (1979))


(Kimber v William Willet Ltd (1947))


(Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Beaverstock (1990))


(Thake v Maurice (1986))

Wilson v Best Travel Ltd (1993)

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


-On holiday in Greece, Wilson fell through a glass door. The door met Greek standards, so the tour operator was not liable

Midland Bank Trust Co v Hett Stubbs and Co (1979)

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


-Solicitors failed to register an option to purchase. They were liable

Kimber v William Willet Ltd (1947)

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


-A fitted carpet was left in a dangerous condition. The fitters were liable

Luxmoore-May v Messenger May Beaverstock (1990)

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


-Auctioneers didn't realise the value of expensive paintings, and sold them cheaply. They were not liable

Thake v Maurice (1986)

SOGASA82 Section 13


There is an implied innominate term that a service will be performed with reasonable care


-A surgeon could not be held liable for an unsuccessful operation

SOGASA82 Section 814


There is an implied innominate terms that performance of a business service should take place within a reasonable time


(Charnock v Liverpool Corporation (1968))

Charnock v Liverpool Corporation (1968)

SOGASA82 Section 814


There is an implied innominate terms that performance of a business service should take place within a reasonable time


-A car repair that should have taken five weeks actually took eight. The garage was liable

SOGASA82 Section 15


There is an implied innominate term that the price of a service will be reasonable (if not specified). A quote is binding, but an estimate is not


(Croshaw v Pritchard and Renwick (1899))

Croshaw v Pritchard and Renwick (1899)

SOGASA82 Section 15


There is an implied innominate term that the price of a service will be reasonable (if not specified). A quote is binding, but an estimate is not

SOGASA82 Section 16

Liability for SOGASA82 Sections 13-15 can be excluded or limited subject to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Sections 6 and 7


A contract can't exclude the condition that the seller has the right to sell, or that the buyer has the right to quiet possession.


A consumer contract can't exclude/limit liability for SOGA79 Sections 13-15, but a business contract can if reasonable

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999



Unfair terms in unnegotiable consumer contracts will be void

Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
This mirrors SOGA79, but relates to hire purchase contracts

Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002


A consumer can only obtain a remedy from the retailer, not manufacturer


He can't claim for wear and tear or accidental damage


He is entitled to a full refund within a reasonable time, or reasonable compensation within six years


If goods are returned within six months, it is the retailers responsibility to prove quality


The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

Enforces penalties for aggressive selling or untruthful claims, without the need to prove that anyone has been deceived

The Consumer Rights Directive 2011

Aims to ensure clarity of information on purchases, and restrict unfair charges/fees