Stevenson v Rogers
A sale is in the course of a business for the purposes of the implied term of quality even if the seller does not normally sell goods of that kind.
Facts
Mr Rogers was a fisherman, who sold his fishing boat, the Jelle, to Mr Stevenson, and bought a new one. Selling a boat was not something he did regularly in his business. Mr Stevenson later claimed that the boat was not of merchantable quality. The question was whether the sale was made in the course of a business, so that the implied term of quality applied.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the sale was made in the course of a business, so the implied term applied. Potter LJ said that the purpose of the Sale of Goods Act, in section 14(2), was to extend the protection of the implied term to all goods sold by a business, so the term in the course of a business should be given a wide meaning, covering any sale by a business, and not only sales of goods in which the seller usually dealt. The narrower interpretation applied in the context of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 did not apply.
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.
