caveat emptor ?

jHx. fldkafoais iy fjdrkaá

• 13 j.ka;sh- ysñlu yd wod< jHx. fldkafoais
• úlsKqï .súiqfï fjkia wdldrfha fÉ;kdjla
fmkakqï lrkafka kï ñi
(a) – NdKav úlsKsfï .súiqul kï NdKav úlsKsug
õl=Kqïlreg whs;sh we;s w;r NdKav úlsKsug tl`. ùfï
.súiqul kï ysñlu udrejk úgoS NdKav úlsKsug õl=Kqïlreg
whs;sh we;s njg jHx. fldkafoaishla we;'
Rowland v Divall (1923)
Niblett v Confectioners’ Materials Co Ltd (1921)
• (b) .ekqïlreg NdKavj, N=la;sh oeÍfï iy
N=la;s ú`osfï yelshdj we;snjg jHx. fjdrkaáhla
we;'
Mason v Burningham(1949)
Rubicon Computer Systems v United Paints Ltd
(2000)

• (c) NdKav" .súiqu we;sjk wjia:dfõ fyda Bg

fmr .eKqïlreg fy<sfkdl< ;=kajk md¾Yjh
iu`. we;s TkEu wdldrfha ne`oSïj,ska ksoyia úh
hq;=njg jHx. fjdrkaáhla we;'
The Barenbels Case (1985)
• 14 j.ka;sh- úia;rhla u; NdKav úlsKsu iy
úia;rh yd idïm,h u; NdKav úlsKsu- jHx.
fldkafoais
–Beale v Taylor (1967)
(1961 - Herald Convertible car)
–Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd
(1936)
–Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
• Ashington Piggeries v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)

“The ‘description’ by which unascertained goods are sold is, in

my view, confined to those word in the contract which were
intended by the parties to identify the kinds of goods which
were to be supplied. It is open to the parties to use a
description as board or as narrow as they choose. But,
ultimately the test is whether the buyer could fairly or
reasonably refuse to accept the physical goods proffered to
him on the ground that their failure to correspond with what
was said about them makes them goods of a different kind
from those he had agreed to buy. The Key to S.13 is
identification.”
15 j.ka;sh- .=K;ajh iy fhda.H;djh(ñ,g .;a wjYH;djhg .e,mSu)
iïnkaO jHx. fldkafoais (quality and fit for purpose)
1) NdKav úfYaI wruqKla i`oyd wjYH jknj m%ldYs;j fyda
jHx.j úl=Kqïlreg okajd ;sfíkï
.ekqïlre" úl=Kqïlref.a úksYaph yd l=i,;dj u; mokï jk
úg iy
úl=Kqïlref.a idudkH jHdmdr lghq;= w;r;=f¾oS ,nd fok
NdKavj, úia;rhg ( ldKavhg) wod,kï
tu NdKav tu wruqKg idodrKj fhda.Hjk njg jHx.
fldkafoaishla we;'
kuq;a" fmgkaÜ iy wfkl=;a fj<`o kdu yd wod<jk NdKav fj;
fuh wod< fkdfõ'
• Jayasena v Colombo Electric Tramways and Lighting Co Ltd
• Frost v The Aylesbury Dairy Co (1905)
• Henry Kendall v William Lillico Ltd (1969)
15. 2) NdKaavhl jdKscH fhda.H;djh (Merchantable
quality)
…………………
kuq;a" .eKqïlre NdKav mÍlaId lsÍug bv oS we;súgoS tjeks
mÍlaIdjloS fy<súh hq;= fodaYhkag fuu jHx. fldkafoaish wod<
fkdfõ
• Grant v Australian Knitting Mills(1936)- tla m%fhdackhla
i`oyd ksYamdokh lr we;s NdKav ta i`oyd iqÿiq
fkdjkafka kï jdKscH fhda.H;djh fkdue;
– Thornet v Beer and Sons (1919)
• Kendall v Lillico (1969)
• George Wills and Co v Davids (1957)

Usability Test & Acceptability Test

16 j.ka;sh- idïm,hla u`.ska NdKav úlsKsu
16(1)
16(2)

– Kearley and Tonge Ltd v Peter (1922)

– ‘The Sample speaks itself’

 úlsKsfï .súiqul m%;sM,
ysñlu udre ùu
úlsKqïlre yd .ekqïlre w;r
• 17 j.ka;sh- wúksYaÑ; NdKav
• 18 j.ka;sh- ksh; yd ksYaÑ; NdKav

• 18 j.ka;sh- md¾Yjhkaf.a fÉ;kdj ksYaph

lr .ekSu i`oyd jk Í;s
 19 j.ka;sh
rS;sh 1
• ksh; NdKav i`oyd fldkafoais úrys; .súiqula
we;súg tlS NdKav Ndr oshyels ;;ajfha ;sfí
kï .súiqu we;slr .kakdúg ysñlu udre fõ'
ñ, f.ùu fyda NdKav NdroSu miqjg isÿjqjo
ysñlu udre fõ'
– Kursell v Timber Operators (1927)
– Aluminium Industries v Rampala (1976)
– Nilabdeen V Farook
– Underwood v Burgh Castle Brick and Cement
Syndicate (1922)
 19 j.ka;sh
rS;sh 2
• ksh; NdKav Ndrosh yels ;;ajhg m;a lsrSug
úlsKqïlre úiska l%shdjla l<hq;= úg tu l%shdj
isÿlr NdKav Ndrfok ;;ajhg m;alr .ekqïlreg
oekqïfok ;=re ysñlu udre fkdfõ

Deliverable state?

Philip Head & Sons Ltd v Showfronts Ltd (1970)

 19 j.ka;sh
rS;sh 3
Ndrosh yels ;;ajfh ajk ksh; NdKav
iïnkaOfhka jk .súiqul ñ, kshu lsÍug
úlsKqïlre úiska nr ne,Su" lsÍu" mÍlaIKhla
lsÍu fyda fjk;a l%shdjla l<hq;=úg tlS ls%hdj
lr úlsKqïlre úiska .ekqïlreg okajk ;=re
ysñlu udrefkdfõ

Nanka Bruce v Commonwealth Trust Ltd (1926)

 19 j.ka;sh
rS;sh 4
• .ekqïlref.a wkque;shg hg;aj fyda úlsKSu fyda wdmiqtùu
i`oyd hfyda ta yd iudk fjk;a kshuhla hgf;a NdKav
hejQúg my; wjia:dj,g wh;afõ kï úlsKqïlref.ka
.ekqïlreg ysñlu udre fõ
a) .ekqïlre ;u leue;a; úlsKqïlreg oekqïÿkaúg
fyda leue;a; olajk hï l%shdjla l<úg
b) tl`. jQ ld,h blaujd NdKav ;ndf.k isákúg
fyda idOdrK ld,hla blaujd NdKav ;ndf.k
isákúg
Poole v Smith’s car sale Ltd (1962)
 19 j.ka;sh
rS;sh 5
1' úia;rhlg wkqj wúksYaÑ; fyda wkd.;fha
we;sjk NdKav iïnkaOfhka .súiqula we;súg
NdKavj,g wod< tu úia;rh yd Ndr oshyels ;;ajh
fldkafoais úrys;j .súiqug wod, lrf.k we;súg
(unconditionally appropriated)
úlsKqïlre ;u tl`.;djh .ekqïlreg fyda
.ekqïlre ;u tl`.;djh úlsKqïlreg fyda
oekqïÿkaúg ysñlu udrefõ'
fuysoS leue;a; m%ldYs;j fyda jHx.j jsh yel'
tfiau N=la;sh Ndr osug fmr fyda miqj ysñlu udre
fõ
• 2. .súiqu m%ldrj NdKav .ekqïlreg" m%jdylfhl=g fyda
wemlrefjl=g (.ekqïlreúiska kï l< fyda fkdl<)
.ekqïlre fj; NdKav /f.k hEug Ndr oS we;súg
úlsKqïlre NdKav neyer lsÍfï whs;sh r`ojdf.k
ke;súg fldkafoais jsrys;j NdKav .súiqug wkq.; lr
we;sf,i ie<fla
Pignataro v Gilroy & Sons (1919)
Healy v Howlett & Sons (1917)
 NdKav neyer lsÍfï whs;sh
• 20 (1) j.ka;sh - ksh; fyda wúksYaÑ; NdKav
.súiqug wod, lr .ekSu ms<sn`o fldkafoais
mj;S kï tajd iïmq¾K lrk;=re NdKavj,
whs;sh .ekqïlreg ,nd.; fkdyels w;r
NdKav neyer lsrSfï whs;sh .ekqïlre i;=
fõ' kuq;a NdKav N=la;sú`oSug Ndrosh yelsh'
• Nilabdeen v Farook
• Jayasena v Rathnadasa
 wjOdku udreùu
• NdKavhl ysñlu ork ;eke;a;d i;=j wjOdku
we;s fyhska
– NdKav ke;sùu
– NdKav úkdY ùu ms<sn`o wjOdku Tyq ord .; hq;=h‘

• 21 j.ka;sh - fjk;a wdldrfha tl`.;djhka

fkdue;súg .ekqïlreg ysñlu udrejk;=re tys
wjOdku úlsKqïlre i;= fõ' kuq;a ysñlu
.ekqïlreg udrejq miqj NdKav Ndr ÿkako
fkdÿkaako tys wjOdku .ekqïlre i;= fõ'
– Nilabdeen v Farook
– Devington v Dale
• jH;sf¾L -
– NdKav /f.k hEug m%udo jQ úg

– úlsKqïlre fyda .ekqïlre NdKav Ndr.;aúg

– NdKav m%jdylfhl=g Ndrÿkaúg (32 j.ka;sh)