Slater v Finning Ltd
A seller is not liable for goods being unfit for a purpose that arises from an abnormal feature of the buyer's equipment that was not made known to the seller.
Facts
Finning supplied a camshaft for the engine of Mr Slater's fishing vessel. The camshaft failed repeatedly, and replacement camshafts also failed. Later, the engine was removed and installed in another vessel, and the camshaft worked properly. The problem was caused by an unusual feature of Mr Slater's vessel, which caused excessive torsional resonance. Mr Slater sued Finning for breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that Finning was not liable. Lord Keith said that, where a buyer purchases goods for a particular purpose, and there is some abnormal feature or idiosyncrasy, not known to the seller, in the buyer or in the circumstances of the use of the goods, which causes the goods to fail, the seller is not liable for breach of the implied condition of fitness. The camshaft was fit for use in a normal vessel, and Mr Slater had not told Finning of the unusual feature of his vessel. The House applied Griffiths v Peter Conway.
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.
