Missing Bearings – Information Duties of the Seller under Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
| Author | Vanessa Mak |
| Date | 01 November 2007 |
| Published date | 01 November 2007 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2007.00673_2.x |
The insertion of new subsections immediately following section13(5) make it
clear that this is change is designed to address the concerns expressed earlier that
the law has been imposing a patriarchal family model upon unpartnered women
seeking fertility treatment. This seems to bring the interpretation of the UK
domestic legislation closer to the position taken by all the courts in the Evans liti-
gation, moving away from the implicit assumption that the ‘father’ in assisted
reproduction is simply a symbolic cipher rather than an instigator of a relation-
ship.
However, this does not meanthat where an unpartnered woman seeks fertility
treatment she will necessarily be required to entertain a social parenting relation-
ship with the sperm donor, but, in those cases where treatment is undergone
within the boundsof an already existing relationship,the judgments seemto have
recon¢gured the man’s role as that of social father.Where an IVF cycle is begun
using gametes from a partnered couple (as opposed to donor sperm) the genetic
father cannot withdraw consent to being treated as the father of any resulting
child ^ thus appearing to strengthen the links between genetic and social father-
hood.
In those unfortunate cases like Evans where the agreement envisaged by the
HFE Act proves impossible, in light of the Grand Chamber’s comments onpar-
enting, the removal of the symbolic fatherhood reference and its replacement
with an overarching welfare criterion may have opened the door to more explicit
considerations of social fatherhood as an aspect of child welfare. Far from assisted
reproduction separating‘babies from sex’ as traditionally understood, in light of
the Grand Chamber decision, the UK model may be closer than ever to recon-
necting the reproductive acts of the parents with their potential children.
Missing Bearings ^ Information Duties of the Seller under
Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
Van e s sa Ma k
n
Sellers shouldbe wiser than to play hide and seek with discontented buyers^ such
is the conclusion that may be drawn from the House of Lords decision in J&H
Ritchie Ltd vLloyd Ltd.
1
The case, which has its origins in the Scottish courts, con-
cerned the purchase of defective farmequipment (a harrow) and, in particular,the
scope of the buyers’ right to reject when repair had been agreed to and the sellers
had succeeded in bringing the goods up to the contractual standard.The problem
n
Lecturer in Law, Oriel College, Oxford. I am grateful to Professor Francis Reynolds and an ano-
nymous refereefor helpful comments on an earlier draft. The usual disclaimer applies.
Information Duties in Sale of Goods Law
1002 r20 07 The Authors.Journal Compilation r20 07The Modern Law Review Limited.
(2007) 70(6) 979^1007
To continue reading
Request your trial