Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS,LORD JUSTICE SALMON |
| Judgment Date | 13 April 1965 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1965] EWCA Civ J0413-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 13 April 1965 |
[1965] EWCA Civ J0413-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From his Honour Judge Baxte West London County Court
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Danckwerts and
Lord Justice Salmon
MR R. I. THREIRALL and MR C. ROSS-MUNRO (instructed by Messrs Goodman Monroe & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
SIR JOHN HOBSON, Q.C. and MR M. IRVINE (instructed by Mr J.R. Capstick-Dale) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
This case raisesthequestion on the sale of a secondhand car: What is the effect of the statutory conditions implied therein?
Sidney Marcus Ltd. are very reputable dealers in secondhand cars. Mr Bartlett was minded in January of last year to buy a secondhand 1961 Jaguar motor car. He bought it from Sidney Marcus Ltd. for the sum of £950, They took his Ford Zodiac in exchange for £400, so he paid on balance £550. This is what happened: Mr Walker, the salesman for the dealers, took the car down from Sloane Street to Romford to show to Mr Bartlett. Oh his way through the City he noticed that there was something wrong with the clutch and with the oil pressure gauge. He thought himself that either the clutch needed bleeding, that is, to get the air out, or there was a leak between the principal and the slave cylinders. Neither of those would be very serious matters. When Mr Walker took the car out to Mr Bartlett, he told him about those defects. He mentioned the clutch and the oil pressure. He suggested two alternative reasons: either it needed bleeding or there was a leak between the cylinders. Then they discussed the price. Mr Walker asked £600. Mr Bartlett said only £500. Then there was a question about repairs to the clutch. Then Mr Walker said: "I will take it back and have it attended to and you pay £575, or you can have it done yourself and have it at £550". That is what they agreed, that Mr Bartlett should take the car and repair the clutch himself. So he had it for £550.
A written contract was drawn up in which it was said, after noting the price: "Oil pressure and filter circuit to be checked. Clutch to be bled at client's expense". There were printed terms and conditions, none of which apply here. Mr Bartlett took the car and drove it for at least a fortnight. He thought it was in good condition and it seemed to be running smoothly. He noticed the oil consumption was considerable and something was wrong with the clutch, but he was not undulyalarmed about it because he had been told of it. He drove it for another fortnight and then he took it in to the garage to be repaired. At the garage it was found there were a number of things wrong with it and a lot of things worn. Most serious of all was this: the clutch thrust was found to he worn away. This was a far more serious defect to the clutch than either Mr Walker or Mr Bartlett had imagined. The work was done. The engine had to be taken down, and whilst it was taken down, they repaired other things. Because the clutch thrust was so worn out the cost of putting it right came to some £45. Mr Bartlett claimed that sum as damages from the defendants. He alleged that there was an express term that the car was in perfect condition except that the clutch needed bleeding. The Judge held there was no such express term and there is no appeal from that finding. Mr Bartlett alleged also that the defendants were in breach of the conditions in Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act.
I think there was an implied condition under Section 14(1). Mr Bartlett did make known to the dealer the purpose for which he wanted the goods, so as to show he relied on his skill and judgment. There was therefore an implied condition that the goods were reasonably fit for the purpose, that is, as a motor car to drive along the road. I think also there was an implied condition under sub-section (2). These goods were bought by description from a seller who dealt in goods of that description. There was therefore an implied condition that they should be of merchantable quality. The Judge has found that both these conditions were broken and has awarded damages of £45. The defendants now appeal.
Sir John Hobeon, for Mr Bartlett, said that in this case the two implied conditions came very much to the same thing. But he seemed to rely most on the implied condition as to merchantability under Section 14(2). I have always understood that the condition under Section 14(2) is less stringent than the condition under Section 14(1). But nevertheless I agree withSir John that they do in this case overlap. I will approach this case, as he did, an Section 14(2). I take the tests as to merchantability stated by Lord Wright in the Cammell Laird case, 1934 Appeal Cases at p. 402, and Grant v. Australian Knitting Mills. 1936 Appeal Cases at p. 99. In the Cammell Laird case, Lord Wright said the goods were unmerchantable if they were "of no use" for any purpose for which such goods would normally be usod. In the Grant case he said that merchantable meant that the article, if only meant for one particular use in the ordinary course, is "fit for that use". It seems tome that those two tests do not cover the whole ground. There is a considerable territory where on the one hand you cannot say that the artiole is "of no use" at all, and on the other hand you cannot say that it is entirely "fit for use". The article may be of some use though not entirely efficient use for the purpose. It may not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crowther v Shannon Motor Company
...have been reasonably fit for the purpose of driving along the road. He drew attention to a case some years ago in this Court of Bartlett v. Sidney Karcus, Ltd. (1965) 2 All E.R. 753. We emphasised then that a buyer, when he buys a second hand car, should realise that defects may appear soon......
-
Joachim Engineering Ltd Plaintiff v Argyle Construction Ltd Defendant [ECSC]
...Sons v. William Lillico (1968) 2 All ER 444 Mason v. Birmingham (1949) 2 All ER 134 The Plaintiff distinguished the case of: Bartlett v Sidney Marcus Ltd [1965] 2 All ER From the facts found above, the application of the provisions of theSale of Goods Act presents no difficulty. The plan......
- Bethune v Qconn Pty Ltd
- Arathoon Sons Ltd; Seng Hin
-
Selling in the Course of a Business Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979
...upon the skill or judgement of the seller in supplying the goods; cf Slater vFinning Ltd[1997] AC 473.70 cf Bartlett vSydney Marcus Ltd [1965] 1 WLR 1013.71 cf R & B Customs Brokers Ltd vUnited Dominions Trust Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 321, 326 per Dillon LJ.72 See s 14(2C).73 See s 14(2A). Regard s......
-
Preliminary Sections
...(1964) 1 Lloyd's List L.A. 329 (1962), 1 Ali N.L.R. 570. • • . • . " . . . . - . • • • • • • - .305 88 Barttlett v. Sidney Marcus Ltd. (1965) 1 W.L.R. 1013 C.A• • • ' ' Black V. Woolf, (1898) 2 Q.B. 426. • • • • " .299 . . . . . Bolton v. London School Board (1878) 7 Ch.D. 766 ..... . . . .......