Merchantable Quality in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Henry Kendall & Sons (A Firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd and Others
    • House of Lords
    • 08 May 1968

    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.

  • Aswan Engineering Establishment Company (M/S) v Lupdine Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 16 July 1986

    In order to comply with that requirement, the goods did not have to be suitable for every purpose within a range of purposes for which goods were normally bought under that description. It was sufficient that they were suitable for one or more such purposes without abatement of price since, if they were, they were commercially saleable under that description.

  • Brown (B. S.) & Son Ltd v Craiks Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 03 March 1970

    The assumption is that the goods are merchantable for a secondary purpose and unless the price is what has been described as a "throw away price" the discrepancy sheds little or no light on the question of merchantable quality. I cannot, for my part, see that the question of latent defect makes any difference.

  • Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft fur Mineralole mbH & Company v Petroplus Marketing AG (The Mercini Lady)
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 19 October 2010

    On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to read our exclusion clause as not being intended to cover the exclusion of the statutory implications of satisfactory quality (the new merchantable quality) and fitness for purpose. Mr Edey's reference to the little known or exemplified section 14(4) cannot realistically be considered as the exclusive subject matter of the clause's language about Strictly speaking the description may be thought to be found in clause 3, headed “Product”.

  • Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 05 November 1986

    "(a) as regards defects specifically drawn to the buyer's attention before the contract is made; or

  • Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 10 July 1968

    There are in my view good reasons for implying such a warranty if it is not excluded by the terms of the contract. If the contractor's employer suffers loss by reason of the emergence of the latent defect, he will generally have no redress if he cannot recover damages from the contractor.

See all results
  • Sale of Goods Act 1979
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1979
    ......contract made before 18 May 1973. S-14 . Implied terms about quality or fitness. 14 Implied terms about quality or fitness. . (1) Except as ...contract are of merchantable quality, except that there is no. such condition— .   . ( a . ) as ......
  • Sale of Goods Act 1893
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1893
    ......with the description. S-14 . Implied conditions as to quality or fitness. 14 Implied conditions as to quality or fitness. . . Subject ...shall be of merchantable quality; provided that if the buyer. has examined the goods, there shall ......
  • Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1973
    ...... Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness. 3 Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness. . 3. For ... (1A) Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality. within the meaning of this Act if they are as fit for the. ......
  • Hire-Purchase Act 1938
    • UK Non-devolved
    • January 01, 1938 implied condition that the goods shall be of. merchantable quality, so, however, that no. such condition shall be implied by virtue ......
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
    • Nbr. 33-1, January 1970
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... condition of fitness for purpose (and that of merchantable quality) should apply to every sale in the course of a ......
  • Law Reform, Law‐Jobs, and Law Commission No. 160
    • Nbr. 51-4, July 1988
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... contention is that the Commission appears to see the quality provisions of the Sale of Goods Act less in terms of ... statutory definition of the implied term of “merchantable quality.” It was argued that the law was unsatisfactory in ......
    • Vol. 26 Nbr. 1, April 2021
    • Art Antiquity & Law
    • Thomas, Rod
    ...... authority to make representations regarding the character or quality of the goods. (4) Such representations will be binding on the seller, (5) ...The Problem of Merchantable Quality. Does the indicative range of prices for sale also describe the ......
  • The Molony Committee
    • Nbr. 26-1, January 1963
    • The Modern Law Review
    ...... In order ‘‘ to improve the quality of consumer goods by increasing the liability, and thereby ... implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality should apply to all consumer sales. The requirement in ......
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT