Consumer and Commercial Law - Assessment One
Whitby Grange Hotel (Whitby) will be suing Newland Electrics Ltd (Newlands) for
breach of contract regarding the lawnmower. To succeed, Whitby must show that a
contractual term was breached. If so, Newlands will attempt to rely on the wording in
their catalogue as a defence.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) deals with consumer contracts between a
consumer and a trader. S2(2)1 defines a trader as a person acting for purposes
relating to their trade, profession or business. S2(3) defines a consumer as an
individual acting for purposes outside of an individual’s business or profession.
Whitby is a business and was acting in the course of its business by purchasing a
lawnmower from Newlands, who sold the goods as a trader. Thus, the CRA would
not apply here; rather, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) will apply, as it is a
business-to-business contract where the goods were defective.
The first breach to address regarding the Prymo-1400 falls under S14(2)2, which
states that goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard of a reasonable
person, considering the description of goods and price if relevant.
S14(2)(B) stipulates conditions under which goods may be deemed as unsatisfactory
Fitness for the purpose for the intended use goods are commonly supplied. Here the
lawnmower did not efficiently cut the grass. Therefore, it failed its purpose.
Durability. The lawnmower was only used once; it blew up the second time it was
used. Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA 3 held that the goods were not
satisfactory regarding durability.
1
The Consumer Rights Act 2015
2
Sale of Goods Act 1979
3
[2006] EWCA Civ 1105, [2006] 7 WLUK 737 The champagne aged prematurely
1
, Consumer and Commercial Law - Assessment One
Safety. The lawnmower crashed into the guests and could have potentially hurt
someone.
In Ward v MGM Marine Ltd 4, a luxury yacht caught fire 15 minutes after delivery.
The courts held that the yacht was not of satisfactory quality as it was not fit for
purpose, safe or durable under s14(2B).
Applying the outcome from Ward5, it is highly likely that the courts will consider there
to be a breach of contract under s.14(2B) as the lawnmower was not safe, durable or
fit for purpose.
Conversely, there are exceptions to a successful claim under s14(2C). If the buyer
examines the goods or if the matter is drawn to the buyer’s attention before the
contract is made, the goods are regarded as satisfactory quality. This does not apply
here, as there is no indication that Whitby knew the goods were defective before
purchasing, so there is no obstacle to her claim.
Under S14(3), fitness for purpose must be communicated if goods are used outside
their normal purpose. Otherwise, no communication is needed as is implied.
Jewson Ltd v Boyhan6 concerned quality of goods and their fitness for purpose. The
buyer bought boilers for his residential flats, but he failed to inform the seller that the
boilers needed to be energy efficient. His case failed under 14(3), as the boilers’
quality was up to standard and carried out their purpose. Without the buyer informing
the seller of the specifications he requires; it is unreasonable to rely on the seller’s
judgement and skill. This case distinguished the difference between s14(2) as a
generic test and (3) as a standard applied to the distinctive circumstances of a case. 7
4
Ward v MGM Marine Ltd [2012] EWHC 4093 (QB)
5
ibid
6
Jewson Ltd v Boyhan [2003] EWCA Civ 1030
7
Judith Embley, Kier Bamford and Nick Hancock, Commercial and Intellectual Property Law and
Practice (College of Law Publishing 2020) 85
2
Whitby Grange Hotel (Whitby) will be suing Newland Electrics Ltd (Newlands) for
breach of contract regarding the lawnmower. To succeed, Whitby must show that a
contractual term was breached. If so, Newlands will attempt to rely on the wording in
their catalogue as a defence.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) deals with consumer contracts between a
consumer and a trader. S2(2)1 defines a trader as a person acting for purposes
relating to their trade, profession or business. S2(3) defines a consumer as an
individual acting for purposes outside of an individual’s business or profession.
Whitby is a business and was acting in the course of its business by purchasing a
lawnmower from Newlands, who sold the goods as a trader. Thus, the CRA would
not apply here; rather, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (SOGA) will apply, as it is a
business-to-business contract where the goods were defective.
The first breach to address regarding the Prymo-1400 falls under S14(2)2, which
states that goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard of a reasonable
person, considering the description of goods and price if relevant.
S14(2)(B) stipulates conditions under which goods may be deemed as unsatisfactory
Fitness for the purpose for the intended use goods are commonly supplied. Here the
lawnmower did not efficiently cut the grass. Therefore, it failed its purpose.
Durability. The lawnmower was only used once; it blew up the second time it was
used. Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA 3 held that the goods were not
satisfactory regarding durability.
1
The Consumer Rights Act 2015
2
Sale of Goods Act 1979
3
[2006] EWCA Civ 1105, [2006] 7 WLUK 737 The champagne aged prematurely
1
, Consumer and Commercial Law - Assessment One
Safety. The lawnmower crashed into the guests and could have potentially hurt
someone.
In Ward v MGM Marine Ltd 4, a luxury yacht caught fire 15 minutes after delivery.
The courts held that the yacht was not of satisfactory quality as it was not fit for
purpose, safe or durable under s14(2B).
Applying the outcome from Ward5, it is highly likely that the courts will consider there
to be a breach of contract under s.14(2B) as the lawnmower was not safe, durable or
fit for purpose.
Conversely, there are exceptions to a successful claim under s14(2C). If the buyer
examines the goods or if the matter is drawn to the buyer’s attention before the
contract is made, the goods are regarded as satisfactory quality. This does not apply
here, as there is no indication that Whitby knew the goods were defective before
purchasing, so there is no obstacle to her claim.
Under S14(3), fitness for purpose must be communicated if goods are used outside
their normal purpose. Otherwise, no communication is needed as is implied.
Jewson Ltd v Boyhan6 concerned quality of goods and their fitness for purpose. The
buyer bought boilers for his residential flats, but he failed to inform the seller that the
boilers needed to be energy efficient. His case failed under 14(3), as the boilers’
quality was up to standard and carried out their purpose. Without the buyer informing
the seller of the specifications he requires; it is unreasonable to rely on the seller’s
judgement and skill. This case distinguished the difference between s14(2) as a
generic test and (3) as a standard applied to the distinctive circumstances of a case. 7
4
Ward v MGM Marine Ltd [2012] EWHC 4093 (QB)
5
ibid
6
Jewson Ltd v Boyhan [2003] EWCA Civ 1030
7
Judith Embley, Kier Bamford and Nick Hancock, Commercial and Intellectual Property Law and
Practice (College of Law Publishing 2020) 85
2
