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.

Grammatically "such goods" refers back to "the goods in the form in which they were tendered". The amended version would be "What subsection (2) now means by 'merchantable quality' is that the goods in the form in which they were tendered were of no use for any purpose for which goods which complied with the description under which these goods were sold would normally be used, and hence were not sale-able under that description."

Some goods which are bought by description may be capable of being used in many different ways. 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. One could not say that a new carpet which happens to have a hole in it or a car with its wings buckled are of no use for their normal purposes and hence would be unsaleable under that description.

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. To do that, la to usurp the position of the trial judge, and to produce a trial of the case in Chambers, on affidavits only, without discovery and without oral evidence tested by cross examination in the ordinary way.

Rectification is concerned with contracts and documents, not with intentions. In order to got rectification, it is necessary to show that the parties were in complete agreement on the terms of their contract, but by an error wrote them down wrongly; and in this regard, in order to ascertain the terms of their contract, you do not look into the inner minds of the parties – into their intentions – any more than you do in the formation of any other contract.

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.