Fitness for a particular purpose

If the buyer wants the goods for a particular purpose, and the seller is aware of this, then by virtue of s 14(3) there will, in all sales in the course of a business, be an implied term that the goods will be reasonably fit for that purpose, unless:

... the circumstances show that the buyer does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely on the skill and judgment of the seller.

The section can apply even though the goods only have one purpose, in which case the seller will be taken to have notice of it, but it will usually be more appropriate to use s 14(2) in such circumstances. Section 14(3) may need to be relied on, however, if there is something special about the circumstances in which the goods are to be used. In Griffiths v Peter Conway, the plaintiff contracted dermatitis from wearing a Harris Tweed coat. This was brought about by the fact that the plaintiff had an unusually sensitive skin. On the facts, this was not something which the seller knew, and so the claim under s 14(3) failed. If the seller had been aware, however, then the action under this section would have been the appropriate one, despite the fact that the coat only had one «purpose», that is, to be worn.

The same approach was used by the House of Lords in Slater v Finning Ltd. A camshaft supplied by the defendants failed when used in an engine fitted to the plaintiffs’ fishing boat. Replacement camshafts supplied by the defendant also failed. The plaintiffs sold the engine, with its latest replacement camshaft, and it was fitted to another fishing boat in which it was apparently used without problem. The judge found that the problem of the failure of the camshafts must have been caused by some unexplained idiosyncrasy of the plaintiffs’ fishing boat. There was therefore no breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose. This conclusion was confirmed by the House of Lords, which also made clear that where the problem arose from an abnormal or unusual situation not known to the seller, it was irrelevant for the purposes of s 14(3) whether or not this situation was known to the buyer.

A claim will not succeed under s 14(3) where the problems arise from the buyer’s misunderstanding of instructions supplied with the goods. This was the view taken in Wormell v RHM Agriculture (East) Ltd. This decision appears to accept, however, that defective instructions could lead to goods being found to be not fit for a particular purpose.

Once it is clear that the seller knew of the particular purpose, the burden is on the seller to show that there was no, or unreasonable, reliance. This is a hard test to satisfy, since the courts tend to favour the buyer, and have made it clear that partial reliance is sufficient to found an action.

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14