Statutory Implied Terms

Terms Implied By Statute

Terms implied by statute are terms automatically included in a contract by law, even if they are not explicitly written or agreed upon by the parties.

• Purpose: Protect parties and ensure minimum legal standards.

• Implication: Apply even if they are not written in the contract, cant be opted out

• Consumer protection: Often ensure goods and services meet required standards.

• Example (UK): Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, goods sold to consumers must generally be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose and as described.

Sales Of Goods Act 1979

Protects buyers in contracts for the sale of goods.

• S.2. SOGA specifies that a contract of sale involves the transfer, or an agreement to transfer, the property in goods from the seller to the buyer, in exchange for a money consideration, called the price

• S.12 SOGA implies that the seller has a right to sell the goods.

• S.13 SOGA implies a term that the goods will correspond to their description. (Even if goods have been seen they must match description)

• S.14 SOGA implies a term that the goods will be of satisfactory quality and fit for the purpose (Judge Decides)

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936)

Even if the goods have been seen, they still need to match their description.

Harlingdon & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art (1990)

There can’t be a sale by description if the buyer has not relied on the seller’s description. EG they have relied on an experts description

Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd (1972)

A term that identifies the very commercial characteristics of unseen goods must be one which the buyer may rely on under these provisions

Moore v Landauer (1921)

The goods must exactly match the description.

Arcos v Ronassem (1933)

The goods must exactly match the description

Geddling v Marsh (1920)

All goods sold under the contract are covered by the law, including packaging.

Wilson v Rickett Cockerill (1954)

Goods contaminated with another substance are unsatisfactory, even if the contaminant would be satisfactory if it was on its own

Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co. Ltd (1905)

The liability of the supplier is strict. This means that it is no defence to say that reasonable care had been exercised

SOGA - Remedies

SOGA remedies are the legal remedies available under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 when a seller breaches the contract, such as by supplying faulty goods or goods that do not match their description.

• Repair

• Replace

• Reduction in price

• Reject/Refund

Customer should decide which option to take but could depend on length of time of ownership.

Wormell v RHM Agriculture (1986/7)

Unclear instructions could render what would otherwise be a satisfactory product, unsatisfactory.

Brown v Craiks (1970)

The more you pay, the better the quality you can expect.

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd (1987)

The more you pay, the better the quality you can expect.

Jackson v Rotax Motor & Cycle Co Ltd [1910]

Ruling: The buyer was held entitled to reject the goods, even though the defects, though they could not be said to be trivial, were minor.