Sale of Goods in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • Hill (Christopher) Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd (Description)
    • House of Lords
    • 24 February 1971

    They should be treated rather as illustrations of the application to simple types of contract of general principles for ascertaining the common intention of the parties as to their mutual promises and their consequences, which ought to be applied by analogy in cases arising out of contracts which do not appear to have been within the immediate contemplation of the draftsman of the Act in 1893.

    It is open to the parties to use a description as broad or narrow as they choose. But ultimately the test is whether the buyer could fairly and reasonably refuse to accept the physical goods proffered to him on the ground that their failure to correspond with that part of what was said about them in the contract makes them goods of a different kind from those he had agreed to buy.

  • 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.

  • Gilbert Ash (Northern) Ltd v Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 25 July 1973

    But in construing such a contract one starts with the presumption that neither party intends to abandon any remedies for its breach arising by operation of law, and clear express words must be used in order to rebut this presumption.

  • Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Company Ltd
    • House of Lords
    • 15 July 1982

    During the argument it was asked what the position would be in a case where there was a relevant exclusion clause in the main contract. My Lords, that question does not arise for decision in the instant appeal, but in principle I would venture the view that such a clause according to the manner in which it was worded might in some circumstances limit the duty of care just as in the Hedley Byrne case the plaintiffs were ultimately defeated by the defendants' disclaimer of responsibility.

  • PST Energy 7 Shipping LLC and Another v O.W. Bunker Malta Ltd and Another "Res Cogitans"
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • 14 July 2015

    In the present case, however, the combination of features listed above means that it cannot have been the object of the contract to transfer property from OWBM to the Owners: both parties knew that this was unlikely ever to happen. Even if it did, because some bunkers remained unconsumed after 60 days, that was not fundamental to the transaction.

  • Bunge Corporation New York v Tradax Export S.A. Panama
    • House of Lords
    • 07 May 1981

    But I do not doubt that, in suitable cases, the courts should not be reluctant, if the intentions of the parties as shown by the contract so indicate, to hold that an obligation has the force of a condition, and that indeed they should usually do so in the case of time clauses in mercantile contracts.

See all results
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
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