Priest v Last
Where goods have only one normal purpose, the buyer impliedly makes that purpose known to the seller, so the seller is liable if they are not fit for it.
Facts
Mr Priest bought a hot water bottle from a chemist, Mr Last, and asked whether it would stand boiling water. He was told that it would not, but that it would stand hot water. When Mr Priest's wife used it, it burst, scalding her. He sued for breach of the implied condition that the bottle was reasonably fit for its purpose.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that Mr Last was liable. Collins MR said that, where goods have only one purpose, such as a hot water bottle, the buyer makes that purpose known to the seller simply by buying them, without saying anything more. The bottle was not reasonably fit for its purpose of being filled with hot water and used to warm a bed, because it burst. Mr Priest was entitled to recover the medical expenses of treating his wife's injuries.
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.
