Jewson Ltd v Boyhan
A buyer who relied on the seller's skill and judgment only for the general quality of goods, not for their suitability for his particular project, could not complain that they did not meet his needs.
Facts
Mr Boyhan, a developer, bought electric boilers from Jewson, a builders' merchant, to install in flats he was converting. The boilers worked properly, but they had low energy ratings under building regulations, which made the flats harder to sell. Mr Boyhan argued that the boilers were not of satisfactory quality or fit for their purpose, because he had bought them for the flats.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Jewson was not liable. Clarke LJ said that the boilers were of satisfactory quality, because they worked properly and the energy ratings were a function of the flats as a whole, not of the boilers. Mr Boyhan had not relied on Jewson's skill and judgment as to whether the boilers would be suitable for his particular project, because that depended on the specific features of the flats, which Jewson did not know, and on which Mr Boyhan had his own advice. The implied term of fitness for purpose did not extend to this.
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
- 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
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.
