LLB COMMERCIAL LAW

Tutorial 3: Implied Terms

Reading:
C Twigg-Flesner, R Canavan and H MacQueen, Atiyah and Adams’ Sale of Goods (Pearson
Logman, 13th ed., 2016) Ch 9 OR E McKendrick, Goode on Commercial Law, 5th edn
(Penguin, London 2016) Ch 11
D Saidov, ‘Standards and Conformity of Goods in Sales Law’ [2017] Lloyd’s Maritime and
Commercial Law Quarterly 65-94
D Saidov, ‘Quality Control, Public Law Regulations and the Implied Terms of Quality’
[2015] Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly 491

Further reading:
M Bridge, The Sale of Goods, 3rd edn (Oxford, OUP 2014) Ch 7
MG Bridge (ed), Benjamin’s Sale of Goods, 10th edn (Sweet & Maxwell, London 2017) Ch
11

Cases:

Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1972] AC 441

Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1991] 1 QB 564
Medivance Instruments Ltd v Gaslane Pipework Services Ltd, Vulcana Gas Appliances Ltd
[2002] EWCA Civ 500
Sumner Permain & Co v Webb & Co [1922] 1 KB 55

Consider the following problems:

1. Motordeal Ltd contracted to sell six cars to GlobeTransport Inc, an international

transportation and car rental company:
(a) The first car was described in the contract as ‘Ford Fiesta LX; mileage: 36,000 miles;
colour: metallic grey’. The colour of the car that was delivered was dark blue.

(b) The second car was described in the contract as ‘the premium BMW i8’. The price,
however, corresponded to a second-hand premium BMW i8. When the car was

1
 delivered and tested by GlobeTransport, it was discovered that there were problems
with software and there were two very noticeable scratches on the right side of the
car.

(c) When GlobeTransport tested the third car delivered by Motordeal, it became clear
that it had been manufactured in accordance with an emission standard that did not
comply with the regulatory standards in Mavritania, where both Motordeal and
GlobeTransport had their places of business. However, it was widely known within
the industry that the authorities in Mavritania did not rigorously enforce that standard.
There were many cars on roads of Mavritania that did not conform to the state
emission standard and there have been very few prosecutions in recent years.
However, some well-known insurance companies have been refusing to insure such
vehicles.

(d) The fourth car was described in the contract as ‘luxury Toyota Avalon’.
GlobeTransport is unhappy with the braking system in the car. It argues that the
system is of lower quality than it has seen in other cars of a similar class. Motordeal
notes that the car has been manufactured in full compliance with the relevant industry
standard. This standard is three years old and the industry experts are in the process of
designing a revised version of the standard to take account of the market expectations
regarding safety standards for the new luxury range cars.

(e) The fifth car was intended to be used by one of the branches of GlobeTransport in
Danubia, of which Motordeal was aware prior to the conclusion of the contract. The
car that was delivered to GlobeTransport met all the regulatory standards of
Mavritania, but did not meet the regulatory standards in Danubia. Those standards,
whilst adhered to by all car manufacturers selling cars in Danubia, are in the nature of
a recommendation and are not binding. Motordeal has exported cars to Danubia in the
last three years.

GlobeTransport is disappointed with Motordeal’s performance. It wishes to reject all five

cars and to terminate the contract.
Advise GlobeTransport.

2. ‘The rules as to correspondence with description in s. 13 of the Sale of Goods Act (SGA)
are outdated and do not correspond to commercial reality. The rules as to terms, implied
under s. 14 SGA, lack precision and are of no real value in practice. The SGA is in need of
serious legislative reforms in this area’.

Critically evaluate this statement.