4.5.9.2 Description

Section 13 says that where goods are sold by description, there is an implied condition that they will match the description. The description may come from the seller or the buyer, and can apply to specific as well as generic goods. Section 13(3) makes it clear that selection by the buyer, as in a self-service shop, does not prevent the sale being by description. Virtually all sales will, as a result, be sales by description, unless the buyer indicates a particular article which he or she wishes to buy, without describing it in any way, and the article itself has no label or packaging containing a description. There must, however, be some reliance on the description by the buyer in order for s 13 to apply. Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd concerned the sale of a painting which turned out not to be by the artist to whom it was attributed in the catalogue. It was found as a matter of fact that the buyer had not relied on this attribution, and therefore this was not a sale by description.

It is important to distinguish statements as to quality from statements of description. To describe a car as «new» is description; to say that it has «good acceleration» is a statement of quality, and not within s 13. Statements in advertisements can, however, be regarded as part of the description, even if the goods have subsequently been inspected. In Beale v Taylor, a car was advertised as a 1961 model. In fact, it was made of two halves welded together, only one of the halves dating from 1961. It was held that there was a breach of s 13.

Note that s 13 applies to private sales as well as those in the course of a business.

4.5.9.3 Satisfactory quality

Where a sale of goods contract is made in the course of business, s 14(2) implies a term of «satisfactory quality». The scope of the phrase «in the course of business», which also applies to the implied term under s 14(3), was considered by the Court of Appeal in Stevenson v Rogers. The case concerned the sale by a fisherman of his fishing boat. The court noted that the original wording of the relevant section in the Sale of Goods Act 1893 had limited liability to where the seller dealt «in goods of that description». This limitation had been removed, however, and did not appear in s 14 of the 1979 Act. The fact, therefore, that the fisherman was not regularly in the business of selling fishing boats did not prevent this being a sale «in the course of business», so that the implied term under s 14(2) applied. In coming to this conclusion, the court held that the narrower interpretation of «the course of a business» used by the Court of Appeal in R and B Customs Brokers v UDT in relation to the UCTA 1977 should not be used in this context.

Where the requirement of «satisfactory quality» applies, this means, according to s 14(2A), that the goods must:

... meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances.

This test of satisfactory quality was substituted for the previous test of «merchantable quality» by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994. The previous case law on s 14(2) is therefore only of limited assistance in the interpretation of this section. Section 14(2B), however, indicates some of the factors which will be relevant in applying the new test. These include the state and condition of the goods, and in particular their:

(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied;

2. appearance and finish;

3. freedom from minor defects;

4. safety; and

5. durability.

The test of «merchantable quality» had centred on the issue now dealt with in (a) above. By virtue of the decision in Aswan Engineering Establishment Co v Lupdine Ltd, however, goods which were fit for just one of the purposes for which they were commonly used would be merchantable. The new wording contained in (a) above means that the fitness of the goods for all such purposes will be relevant to the test of whether they are of satisfactory quality.

Defects which have been brought to the buyer’s attention prior to the contract, or which should have been revealed by any inspection actually undertaken by the buyer, will not make the goods of unsatisfactory quality (s 14(2C)).

There seems no reason to doubt that the new test will, like the test of merchantability, include the containers in which the goods are supplied, and may also include instructions for use. If the goods are supplied in bulk, extraneous items which are concealed within them may render the goods unsatisfactory. In Wilson v Rickett Cockerell Co, the presence of detonators in a bag of coal was held to make the coal unmerchantable.

If the buyer is a consumer, then, as a result of additions made by the Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002, an additional circumstance needs to be taken into account in relation to the test of satisfactory quality. Section 14(2D) states that:

... if the buyer deals as consumer ... the relevant circumstances mentioned in subsection (2A) above include any public statements on the specific characteristics of the goods made about them by the seller, the producer or his representative, particularly in advertising or on labelling.

This means that, for the first time, statements made in national advertising and emanating from the manufacturer («producer») rather than the seller can affect the seller’s obligation to sell goods of «satisfactory quality». There is some protection for the seller in the new s 14(2E) in relation to statements of which the seller was not aware, which have been withdrawn or corrected, or which could not have influenced the consumer’s decision to buy the goods. The scope of «satisfactory quality» in consumer contracts is nevertheless significantly expanded by this amendment.

Finally, it is important to note that the test of satisfactory quality does not relate to the Particular use that the buyer has in mind (for which see s 14(3), below) but to the general standard of the goods. This is confirmed by the recent Court of Appeal decision in Jewson LTd v Boyhan, which is discussed below, at 4.5.9.5.