Sale by description; description made by the goods itself

Crant v Australian knitting Mills

Where there is uncertainty about the status of a description the test is did the buyer rely on it? Was
it used to identify the thing sold or was it merely collateral.

Grant bought a , woolen underpant from a shop that specialised in selling good of that description.
After wearing it the garments for a short time he developed severe dermatitis because the garments
contained chemical left over from processing the wool. The issue whether there was reliance on the
retailer choice of quality products such that there was a breach of implied condition for fitness for
purpose.

The goods were not reasonably fit for their only proper purpose. The plaintiff relied om the retailer
choice of a quality product that could be worn without being washed first.

Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd

A woman with abnormally sensitive skin bought a coat without telling the sales man that she had a
sensitive skin bought a coat without telling the salesman that she had sensitive skin. She
subsequently contracted dermatitis from wearing the coat.

She was unable to recover for breach of fitness for purpose because there was nothing in the cloth
that would have affected the skin of norma person. She had failed to disclose that she suffered from
skin problems.

George Mitche( Chesterhall) ltf v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd.

The plaintiffs were farmers who bought seeds described as I’ 30lbs cabbage finney lock seedh
special” at L1192 from the defendant who were seed merchant.

The court held that cabbage seed does not fit the description.

Section 16(1) (a) Implied condition that good purchase shall be reasonably fit for the purpose for
which it acquired.

The particular purpose for which the goods were enquired could be implied by the plaintiff, making
known to the defendant expressly or by implication the particular purpose for which the goods were
needed

Khong Seng v Ng Teong Biscuit Factory

The plaintiff (seller) sell a number of tinsssss of tallow to the buyer (defendant) at Rm13.50 a tin.
The buyer told the plaintiff that the tallow was required for making biscuit and they used iof the tins
supplied to make biscuit. The biscuit wholly unsaleable and the defentandt told the seller the
sellers ot its unsuitability but the plaintiff refused to take the remaining and sued for the price of the
tallow.
The court held that the tallow was supplied was not fit for the purpose. The defendant could
repudiate the contract for breach of the implied condition as to the fitness or the purpose.

David Jones Ltd v Willid

Wilson v Rickett & Co ltd

Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lilico & Sons Co Ltd

Wren v hot

Mc Williams Mines Ltd v Liawenna (NSW) pty ltd

Frost v Aylesbury

Section 16 (1)(b)

Merchantable quality

Implied condition the goods supplied must be of merchantable quality except in respect of

(a) Defects specifically drawn to the buyer’s attention before the contract is made, and
(b) b) defects which any examination actually carried out by the buyer before the contract
ought to reveal

The sale of goods act does not define the words merchantable

Common law defines merchantable quality in the case

Aswan Engineering Establishment co V Lupdine

Goods of merchantable quality are defined as goods fit for the purpose or purposeses for which
goods of that kind are commonly bought.

a) Any description
b) The price , if relevant ; and
c) All other relevant circumstances.

M/s A Aswan Engineering Establishment co V Lupdine

The buyer bought some heavy duty plastics pails in which to transsspor a liquid
waterproofing compound to the middle east. The pails, filled with the compound were
stacked up to six high in the shipping containers and, on arrival at their destination, Kuwait,
were left, still stacked up to six high, in full sunshine on the quayside. Eventually, the
extreme heat caused the pails to collapsed and all the cpm[pound was lost. The buyer sued
the seller claiming that the pails were not of merchantable quality as, it was argued, they
should be fit for all the purposeses for which goods of this type would commonly be used.
 The court of appeal held the goods to be unmerchantable they had to be unfit for any
purpose for which goods sold under the contract description would normally be used

To be merchantable the goods need only be fit for one of their natural purpose

In cristol v Tramways Co Ltd v Fiat motor ltd

Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lili co
Seng Hin v Arathoon & Sons ltd
Roger v Parish
Hell v Hedges
Gedding v Marsh
Priest v last

Across ss Ltd V EA Ronassen & Sons

Some wooden staves was to be supplied to the buyer, The thickness of the staves were to be half an
inches on their arrival to the buyer, some of the staves correspond tod the description but other did
not. The court held the buyer entitled to reject the goods and there had been a breach of implied
condition as to the description of the goods. If the written contract specified the condition of weight
,measurement and the like, those condition must be complied with. The judges in this case further
held that” a ton is not about a ton or aa yard is not about a yard, does half an inch mean about half
an inch”

Description is not just the goods but how the goods is being pack can be description. If the buyer
ask the seller to pack the goods specifically, it can become description under section 15

Re Moore & Co v Landauer

A contract provided for the sale of consignment of 3000 tins of fruit packed in cases of 30 tins each,
and some of the tins were actually packed in cases of 24 tin.

Held: the buyer could reject the whole consignment.