Myers (G. H.) & Company v Brent Cross Service Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1934 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
39 cases
-
Siney v Corporation of Dublin
...and its fitness for habitation. ( Norris v. Staps Hobart 210, Pearce v.Tucker 3 F. & F. 136, Myers and Co. v. Brent Cross ServiceCo. 1934 1 K.B. 46, Hall v. Burke 3 T.L.R. 165, Brownv. Norton 1954 I.R. 34). There can be no doubt that the authorities referred to, and many others too numerou......
-
Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
...in this case. 11There is little assistance to be got from the earlier authorities. The first which must be examined is Myers & Co. v. Brent Cross Service Co. [1934] 1 K.B. 46. There Myers engaged Brent Cross to repair their motor car. It was necessary to fit new connecting rods and Brent C......
-
King v Victor Parsons & Company
...... . 24 In the results, I think the appeal and cross - appeal should be dismissed. I would affirm the Order of the Judge. ......
-
Gloucestershire County Council v Richardson
...there may be also an implied term that the materials are fit for some particular purpose for which they are required. 64In G. H. Myers & Co. v. Brent Cross Service Co. [1934] 1 K.B. 46 at page 55 du Parcq J. said: "It would not be true to say that wherever you find a contract to do work an......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
-
Warranties By The Provider Of Free Issue Material
...by it are new, of good quality, and are fit and suitable for its intended purpose. Footnotes 1. G H Myers and Co v Brent Cross Service Co [1934] 1 KB 46 at 55 per du Parcq J; Timms Contracting Pty Ltd v Pipes International (Qld) Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 88 at 2. Harris v Marabito Holdings [2018] ......