The Sales of Goods Act 1979 - Doc

Introduction
The Sales of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of goods and services Act 1982 are the two main
enactments that aim at providing protection to the consumers. The Consumer Rights Act 2015
was formulated and has replaced most of the provisions of the 1979 Act and 1982 Act though the
Act has not been replaced and the provisions are still applicable for the sale of goods and
services.
The legal provisions are now applied to the resolve the raised questions.
Q1: Analyse and advice Mr John on the legal rules on implied terms relating to the sale of
goods and supply of services.
The sales of Goods Act 1979 enacted provisions which aim at imposing few conditions which
must be comply with by every seller. The provisions are also part of the Consumer Rights Act
2015 and are analyzed herein under:
i. Section 17 of the 2015 Act (section 12 of 1979 Act) – The section submits that there
is an implied term as to title and is applicable when there is private sale amid business
to business transactions.
Section 17 (1) submits that there is an implied condition that the seller has the right in
the goods to sell the goods and is held in Rowland v Dival [1923]. If any intellectual
property right is voilared by the sale of the goods then also the seller does not have
the right to sell the goods and is held in Niblett v Confectioners' Material [1921].
As per section 17 (2) it is also important that when the seller is selling the goods then
it must be free from all encumbrances.
as The seller must also make sure that the buyer must enjoy the goods without any
hindrance. No person must make interference in the use of the buyer goods and is
held in Microbeads v Vinehurst Road Markings [1975].
ii. Section 11 of the 2015 Act (section 13 of 1979 Act) – as per section 11 (1), when the
sale is made with description, then, the goods supplied must correspond with the
description and is held in Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991].
The section has no relevance if the goods are seen by the buyer before the sale.
iii. Section 9 of the 2015 Act (section 14 of 1979 Act) – when the goods are sold in the
course of business as mentioned under Stevenson v Rogers [1999], it is necessary that
the quality of the goods must be satisfactory in nature. the quality is satisfactory is
judges on account of what a reasonable man thinks including the appearance,
durability, safety, fitness for the goods normally applied, etc and is held in Aswan
Engineering v Lupdine [1987]. The section has no relevance if the defect is laredy
bought to the notice of buyer and is held in Bartlett v Sidney Marcus ltd [1965].

iv. Section 10 of the 2015 – It is submitted that if before the purchase of the goods, the
buyer has specified the reason because of which the goods are to be purchased and
the seller assures that the goods so supplied are fit for the purpose acquired, then, the
actual goods supplied must fit for the purpose of the buyer and is held in Shine v
General Guarantee Corp [1988].
v. As per section 13-14 of the 2015 Act – The goods must correspond with the sample
and model.
Remedies
i. As per section 19 (6) of the 2015 Act, if the seller does not have the title in the goods
then the buyer has the right to cancel the contract and return the goods claiming full
purchase price. There is no limitation as to time.
ii. If the product is charged with encumbrances then it is violation of section 17, but only
damages can be claimed.
iii. As per section 19 (3) if there is violation of section 9-11, 13-14, then, the buyer has
right to reject the goods under section 20 and 22 of the Act, seek repair or
replacement of goods under section 23 of the Act and the has the right to reduce the
price of the goods under section 20 and 24 of the Act.
iv. Specific performance
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 includes the provisions of the sales of Goods Act 1982 which are
applied when the goods and services are supplier.
i. Section 49 of the 2015 Act – the services must be provided with care and diligence.
ii. Section 51 of the 2015 Act –if no price is agreed then reasonable price must be paid.
iii. Section 52 of the 2015 Act – the services must be provided within reasonable time.
iv. Section 7-10 of the 2015 Act depicts section 12- 15 of the 1979 Act.
The provisions cannot be excluded by any clause as per section 6 of the Unfair Contract Terms
Act.
The law is now applied to the facts of the case.
Mr John decided to stop at the departmental store in order to buy a TV in stock. A TV was
selected which was to be delivered within next three working days. Miss Sarah was fund to be in
violation of several provisions of the 2015 Act:
i. Prior selling the TV, Miss Sarah told Mr John that the TV is of very high quality,
durability and is good value for money. The TV was working fine for the first three
weeks but there was a flash and puffs of smoke that was coming out of TV. It is
submitted that there is breach of:

a. section 17 of the 2015 Act as Mr John was not able to enjoy the TV and is nit
free from the inherent defects.
b. Also, Miss Sarah before selling the goods made a description that the goods is of
high quality, durable and if good value for money, thus, there is breach of section
11 of the 2015 Act.
c. There is also breach of section 9 as the TV was sold in the course of business and
is not of satisfactory quality, that is, is not safe, durable.
d. Also, there is violation of section 49 and 51 as the services are not provided with
care and diligence and within reasonable time.
So, Mr John can seek remedy under section 19 of the Act.
The clause in the document has no relevance as per section 6 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act
1977.
Q2: Analyse and advice Mr John on the statutory provisions on the transfer of property
and possession.
There are several statutory provisions on the transfer of property and possession which are made
part of the Sales of Goods Act 197. The same are submitted herein below: (Owens K, 2001)
i. Section 16 of the 1979 Act – it is submitted that the property in the goods will only be
transferred when the goods are specific and in deliverable stature. If the goods are not
specific then the property will pass when the goods are converted in the deliverable
state;
ii. Section 17 of the 1979 Act – when the goods are specific and is also in deliverable
state then as per Dennant v Skinner (1948) the property in the goods will pass only
when the parties intend it to pass;
iii. Section 18 of the 1979 Act - when the goods are specific and is also in deliverable
state but the intention of the parties regarding the time at which property must pass is
not certain, then, the rules of section 18 will apply:
Rule 1 – if any pre requites are required before the property must be passed from
seller to buyer then as per Lambert v G & C Finance Corpn. (1963) property will pass
when such pre requisites are complying with;
Rule 2 – If the goods are not in deliverable state then the property will pass only
when the goods are converted into deliverable state.
Rule 3 – If the goods must be weighed or measured etc then the same must be done in
order to transfer the property in the goods and is held in Poole v Smith's Car Sales
(Balham) Ltd (1962).
The law is now applied.

Mr Adam purchased the TV from Miss Sarah. The TV was specific and the same was in
deliverable state. However as per section 17 the property in the TV will pass only when both of
them will intent. Since the intention cannot be gathered, then, the rule under section 18 must be
complying with. As per section 18 (1) since the goods are specific and in deliverable state then
the property in the goods must pass immediately.
So, the property in the TV is already passed to Mr John.
Q3 Evaluate the statutory provisions on buyer’s and seller’s remedies in sale of goods
contracts,
Statutory provisions of buyers remedy (The Law Teacher 2018)
i. Specific performance can be sought under section 52(1) of 1979 when damages are
not the appropriate remedy and is held in Behnke v. Bede Shipping Co;
ii. Under section 35 of the 197 Act, if the goods are not delivered on time then the buyer
can reject the delivery of the goods;
iii. As per section 11 (4) of the 1979 Act if the buyer has accepted the late delivery then
only damages can be sought.
iv. When there is breach of implied warranties then damages can be attained under
section 53 (1) of the 1979 Act.
v. When the goods are not delivered at all then damages can be sought under section 51
(1) of the 1979 Act;
vi.
Statutory provisions of seller’s buyers remedy (Bridge 1998)
i. Under section 41-43 a seller has the right of lien over the goods and is only applicable
till the time the price in the goods are not paid;
ii. Under section 50 of the 1979 Act, if the buyer does not take delivery then damages
can be sought;
iii. As per section 44-46 of the 1979 Act, the seller has to deliver the goods and placed
the goods in transit, then, at later stage it is found that the buyer has turned insolvent,
then, the seller has the right to stop the goods in transit.
iv. Under section 49 of the 1979, the seller can ask for the price of the goods;
v. Seller can also resell the goods in certain conditions, that is, goods are perishable, the
terms of the contract authorizes.
These are the remedies that can be availed by a seller and buyer.

Q4 Apply product liability statutory provisions for faulty goods
When the goods are sold by the seller to the buyer and the goods are found to be defective in
nature then the buyer has the right to seek product liability from the seller. That is:
i. When any contract is made for the sale of good amid the buyer and the seller and the
product so delivered is found to be defective in nature, then, there is breach of few
implied conditions and warranties that are governed by the 1979, 1982 and 2015 Act.
thus, non compliance of such terms will result in breach of contract and the buyer
may seek damages from the seller for breach of contract;(In brief 2018)
ii. Every seller under the law of negligence is under legal duty to provide product so that
no loss is caused to the buyer because of the use of such product. But when loss is
caused then the seller can be held liable for causing negligence. However, the loss
that is caused to the buyer must not be remote in nature and the loss must be caused
because of the use of the faulty product and is held in Donoghue v Stevenson (1932);
iii. Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 when loss is caused to the consumer
because of the defective product and the value of the damage is under £275 then
remedy can be sought under the Act.
Thus, these are some of the legislations under which the liability can be claimed by the aggrieved
party.

Reference list
Books/articles/Journals
Bridge, M. 1998. The Sale of Goods, Oxford University Press.
Owens K (2001) Law for Non-Law students.
Case laws
Aswan Engineering v Lupdine [1987] 1 All ER 135
Bartlett v Sidney Marcus ltd [1965] 1 WLR 1013
Behnke v. Bede Shipping Co
Dennant v Skinner (1948)
Donoghue v Stevenson (1932);
Harlington & Leinster v Christopher Hull Fine Art [1991] 1 QB 564;
Lambert v G & C Finance Corpn. (1963) ;
Microbeads v Vinehurst Road Markings [1975] 1 WLR
Niblett v Confectioners' Material [1921] 3 KB 387
Poole v Smith's Car Sales (Balham) Ltd (1962).
Rowland v Divall [1923] 2 KB 500
Shine v General Guarantee Corp [1988] 1 All ER 911
Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613
Online Material
Inbrief (2018) Product liability (online). Available at: https://www.inbrief.co.uk/sales-law/product-
liability/. (Accessed on 18th May 2018)
The Law Techer (2018) Terms (online). Available at:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/business-law/sale-of-goods-act.php. (Accessed on
18th May 2018)