commercial law: sale of goods cases

Armour v Thyssen

Armour v Thyssen: held all sums clauses to be valid; all sums clauses are used to effect that property doesn't pass to buyer until all sums due including those not relating to goods are passed to seller which were initially viewed as attempt impermissible in Scots law to create security over moveables without possession

Douglas v Glenvarigill Co Ltd

Douglas v Glenvarigill Co Ltd: court held that reasonable period starts to run when goods are delivered, not when defect appears, and found that period of 13 months was too long; thus, vehicle couldn't be rejected under 1979 Act s35

Flour Ltd v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Ltd

Flour Ltd v Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Ltd: court held that fitness for purpose should be assessed by considering whether reasonable person in position of buyer would consider goods fit for purpose

Four Point Garage v Carter

Four Point Garage v Carter: for purposes of 1979 Act s25 where goods are delivered directly from seller to buyer instead of from seller to subpurchaser there had been constructive delivery of goods from seller to subpurchaser for purpose of giving subpurchaser title so Freeway [subpurchaser] was classified as buyer in possession even though they were never in physical possession of goods and never delivered goods to buyer; thus, buyer did have ownership

Lamarra v Capital Bank plc

Lamarra v Capital Bank plc: warranty - fact that such defects may be remedied - shouldn't be taken into account in determining whether goods are of satisfactory quality; satisfactory quality doesn't require perfection in goods; what is satisfactory depends on circumstances and price of goods

MacDonald v Pollock

MacDonald v Pollock: 1979 Act s14(2C) is only concerned with examination that was carried out, not examination that should've been carried out

Millars of Falkirk v Turpie

Millars of Falkirk v Turpie: 'minor defects' applies to relatively small matters that could readily have been cured by trader with great ease and at very little cost, e.g. obvious leak in power-assisted steering system of new car

Niblett Ltd v Confectioners' Materials Co

Niblett Ltd v Confectioners' Materials Co: seller who in selling breaches intellectual property rights of third party doesn't have right to sell and is thus breaching implied terms under 1979 Act s12 that they have right to sell goods and that buyer is entitled to quiet possession of goods

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd: court allowed pursuer to reject goods under 1979 Act s35 6 months after delivery, holding that purchaser is entitled to give newly purchased car pleasure, pride and performance they expected

Archivent Sales and Developments v Strathclyde Regional Council

Archivent Sales and Developments v Strathclyde Regional Council: contractor was placed in possession of materials from supplier which were then held to have been delivered to Strathclyde RC when included in interim certificate and not rejected by RC and RC was unaware of suspensive condition in contract between contractor and supplier; thus, property in materials had passed to RC under 1979 Act s25(1)