Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd
A buyer with an abnormal sensitivity who does not tell the seller of it cannot complain that the goods are not fit for their purpose.
Facts
Mrs Griffiths bought a Harris tweed coat from Peter Conway, a tailor. She had abnormally sensitive skin, but she did not tell the seller. She developed dermatitis from wearing the coat. A normal person would not have been affected. She sued for breach of the implied condition that the coat was reasonably fit for its purpose.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the seller was not liable. Sir Wilfrid Greene MR said that the buyer had not made known to the seller the particular purpose for which the coat was required, namely to be worn by a person with abnormally sensitive skin, so the seller could not be expected to have exercised its skill and judgment in relation to that purpose. The coat was fit for the normal purpose of being worn by a normal person. The case was later applied in Slater v Finning.
Related cases on implied terms: title, description, quality and fitness
- Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] AC 470
- 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
- 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.
