Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd
A new car with defects to the engine, gearbox and bodywork was not of merchantable quality, even though the defects were repairable, because a buyer of such a car expects more.
Facts
Mr Rogers bought a new Range Rover for £16,000. It had numerous defects, including in the engine, gearbox and bodywork, and oil seals, which were not cured after the car was returned to the manufacturer for repair. The defects did not make the car undriveable, and they could be repaired. After driving it for some months, Mr Rogers rejected the car, and sued for breach of the implied condition of merchantable quality.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the car was not of merchantable quality, so Mr Rogers was entitled to reject it. Mustill LJ said that the question was what a buyer could reasonably expect of a new Range Rover at that price, which included not only the ability to drive it safely, but also a reasonable degree of comfort, ease of handling, reliability and pride in the vehicle's appearance. The defects meant that the car did not meet those expectations, even though they were repairable. The test is now one of satisfactory quality, under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended in 1994.
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.
