Agricultural Product in UK Law

If the description is a familiar one it may be that in practice only one quality of goods answers that description —then that quality and only that quality is merchantable quality. Or it may be that various qualities of goods are commonly sold under that description—then it is not disputed that the lowest quality commonly so sold is what is meant by merchantable quality: it is commercially saleable under that description.

If the buyer wants goods that are suitable for each one of several purposes he must make that clear to the seller and make it clear that he is relying upon the seller to let him have goods that would be suitable for each one of the purposes. If the buyer merely orders goods by description all that he can expect is that he will get goods that correspond with the description and goods of such a quality that they could be used for one of the purposes for which such goods arc normally used.

The suggestion, without more, that goods are merchantable unless they are of no use for any purpose for which they would normally be used and hence would be unsaleable under that description may be misleading, if it contains no reference to price. It would be wrong to say that "seconds" are necessarily merchantable.

But this summary jurisdiction of the court was never intended to be exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facta of the case, in order to see whether the plaintiff really has a cause of action. This seems to me to be an abuse of the inherent power of the court and not a proper exercise of that power.

I cannot emphasise too strongly that the issue on an appeal from the Tribunal is not whether the appellate body agrees with its conclusions. It is this: as a matter of law, wasthe Tribunal entitled to reach its conclusions? It is a misconception of the very nature an appeal on a point of law to treat it, as too many appellants tend to do, as just another hearing of the self-same issue that was decided by the Tribunal.

The second question formulated was: Does the Act apply to a substance which is sold for the purposes of resale as an ingredient in some compounded food and not as a foodstuff itself?

However, those characteristics or circumstances clearly have to be of a wholly exceptional nature, such that it would very obviously be inconsistent with the objective of achieving fairness (ie it would create an unfair outcome) for them to be ignored.