Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son
Goods must correspond exactly with their description, and a buyer can reject goods that do not, even if the difference is small and does not affect their use.
Facts
Arcos agreed to sell a quantity of timber staves to Ronaasen, for making cement barrels, described as half an inch thick. When the timber was delivered, most of it was between half an inch and nine sixteenths of an inch thick, and only a small part was exactly half an inch thick. The timber could still be used to make cement barrels. The buyers rejected it, because the market price of timber had fallen.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the buyers were entitled to reject the timber, because it did not correspond with its description. Lord Atkin said that a ton does not mean about a ton, or a yard about a yard, and that if the seller wants a margin he must and in my experience does stipulate for it. The fact that the timber could be used for the same purpose did not matter, because the buyer was entitled to goods that complied with the contract description. A buyer's right to reject for small breaches has been restricted by section 15A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which applies to non consumer buyers where the breach is so slight that rejection would be unreasonable.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441
- Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 1
- Beale v Taylor [1967] 1 WLR 1193
- Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1936] AC 85
- Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685
- Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
- Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
- Jewson Ltd v Boyhan [2003] EWCA Civ 1030
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
