WL Thompson Ltd v Robinson (Gunmakers) Ltd
Where supply of goods exceeds demand, a seller whose buyer refuses to take the goods can recover the lost profit on the sale, even though the goods can be resold at the same price.
Facts
Robinson agreed to buy a new Standard Vanguard car from Thompson, a car dealer, and then refused to take delivery. Thompson returned the car to its supplier, without loss. Thompson sued Robinson for its lost profit on the sale. Robinson argued that, because there was a market for the car at the same price, the dealer had suffered no loss.
Legal principle
Upjohn J held that Thompson was entitled to its lost profit. At the time, the supply of Standard Vanguard cars exceeded the demand, so the dealer could not find another buyer to replace Robinson, and it would have made both sales if Robinson had not defaulted. The available market rule in section 50(3) of the Sale of Goods Act did not apply, because there was no available market in the sense that demand exceeded supply. Thompson had lost a sale, and the profit on it.
Related cases on remedies in sale of goods
- Behnke v Bede Shipping Co Ltd [1927] 1 KB 649
- Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1998] QB 87
- Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220
- Cehave NV v Bremer Handelsgesellschaft mbH (The Hansa Nord) [1976] QB 44
- Charter v Sullivan [1957] 2 QB 117
- Clegg v Olle Andersson (The Hampton) [2003] EWCA Civ 320
- Cohen v Roche [1927] 1 KB 169
- Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 QB 26
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.
