Microbeads AG v Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd
The implied warranty of quiet possession is a continuing obligation, so a seller is liable if a patent granted after the sale interferes with the buyer's use of the goods.
Facts
Microbeads sold road marking machines to Vinhurst Road Markings. At the time of the sale, a third party had applied for a patent for such machines, but the patent was not granted until after the sale. The patent holder then claimed that Vinhurst's use of the machines infringed its patent. When Microbeads sued for the price, Vinhurst argued that Microbeads was in breach of the implied terms about title.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Microbeads was not in breach of the implied condition that it had the right to sell, because at the time of the sale no patent had been granted, so it did have the right to sell. However, Lord Denning MR said that the implied warranty that the buyer would enjoy quiet possession of the goods, in what is now section 12(2)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, is a continuing warranty, which can be broken by events after the sale, such as the grant of a patent. Microbeads was therefore liable for breach of that warranty.
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.
