IndexSale by descriptionSatisfactory qualityFitness for purposeThe Sale of Goods Act (SGA) 1979 regulates the sale of goods in the UK and imposes contractual terms which are provisions which form part of a contract of sale. There are several implicit terms codified in the SGA; title, freedom from burdens and encumbrances, quiet possession, correspondence to description, quality, fitness for purpose and correspondence to sample. Implied terms have been put in place to work in the buyer's favor. The three implied terms I will focus on in this essay are; sale by description (S13(1), satisfactory quality of the goods (S14(2) and fitness for purpose of the goods (S14(3). I will explore fairness to see whether these implied terms work to the buyer's advantage. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why should violent video games not be banned"? Get an original essay Sale by description Section 13(1) of the SGA 1979 states that sale by description must be complied with when entering into a contract. for sale and that "the goods will correspond to the description" given Under section 13(1A) of the SGA 1979, the implied term is a term enabling the party to terminate the contract, claim damages or maintain the contract contract This condition will apply to the seller selling the goods regardless of whether it is a commercial activity or not and in situations where the buyer has not seen the goods but relies only on the description "Sale of goods according to the description ” has no statutory definition, so you need to look at the plain, ordinary meaning of the words. The words should correspond to the description provided by one of the two at the time of signing the contract; the seller describing the good or in any written description such as packaging/display marks. If the goods have not been ascertained, the description will be essential for the buyer to determine whether the seller has fulfilled his obligations by supplying the correct goods. Descriptive words are terms in the contract that identify the goods in question. The description must have sufficient influence on the sale to become an essential clause of the contract. One way in which selling by description benefits the buyer is that if the goods purchased from the seller do not match the description, the buyer may be able to claim infringement of section 13(1). If the buyer deals as a consumer he will have the right to request this from the seller; repair/replace the goods, reduce the price of the goods or terminate the contract. The buyer also has the right to reject the goods if he has not accepted them. However, if you have accepted the goods, breach of conditions will be considered a breach of warranty. In any case, the buyer is protected by the SGA and benefits from it, because if the buyer requests the seller to repair or replace the goods, the seller must do so within a reasonable time. In this way no inconveniences occur, thus benefiting the buyer as no time is wasted in replacing or repairing the goods allowing the buyer to enjoy all the benefits of the goods in the shortest possible time. A sale will not be by description simply because descriptive words were used during negotiations; for it to be based on the description, the buyer must rely on the words in entering into the contract. In the 1967 case Beale v Taylor, the buyer realized that the car he obtained was not as described after purchasing it. Since the buyer had relied on this, it was deemed to be asale of a good according to the description. The buyer may claim breach of the implied condition in section 13(1). This case illustrates how the implied term benefits the buyer. Even if the buyer had relied on the description, bought the car and taken it away, he could still claim damages as he was protected by the implied terms. Another example of how the condition of sale as described is advantageous to the buyer is Arcos v Ronaason 1933. The wooden slats supplied did not match the description made, although they were still usable. Buyers had the right to reject the slats as they relied on the description where the sellers breached the implied term. Lord Atkin stated that "a ton does not mean about a ton or a meter about a metre". It highlights the strict commercial law approach that if the buyer expects the good to match the description provided, this is what he should receive. If the goods do not correspond to the description, the buyer is entitled to compensation for damages. This protects the buyer's rights, therefore protecting them from sellers who fail to fulfill their obligations, while demonstrating the rigorous approach. In Harlingdon and Leinster 1991, the rigorous approach of statutory interpretation was illustrated. The seller stated that he was not an expert on paintings, so the buyer relied on his own judgment and purchased the painting later realizing that it was counterfeit. The buyer attempted to report a breach of section 13(1), but as the seller denied that he did not know, the buyer could not have relied on the description provided. This sale was not as described. It can be argued that this application of the strict statutory approach reintroduces the notion of caveat emptor (buyers beware) in relation to corporate buyers. Lord Justice Nourse proposed that "the description must have sufficient influence in the sale to become an essential term of the contract". When the seller expresses an opinion about the goods sold, this is not the same as a statement of fact. Therefore, since the seller stated that he knew nothing about the painting, the buyer could not file a complaint since he did not rely on the seller's description. Lord Justice Nourse said that section 13 was "superfluous", as the existence of a sale by description depends on whether the buyer relied on it or not, making it a term of the contract. This shows that implied terms don't always work in buyers' favor. Strict application of section 13(1) may be a disadvantage to the purchaser as the section states the obvious and is interpreted as it is. Harrington defines section 13 as the trust the buyer places in the seller. Therefore, the balance of bargaining power has shifted in favor of the seller, who can now conveniently evade section 13 by pleading ignorance at the time of entering into the contractual agreement. The buyer must now be aware of what the seller says and does, bringing caveat emptor into play, undermining the buyer's power. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith pointed out that "there is a serious flaw in law if the effect of a condition implied in law can be excluded by the seller's claiming that he is not an expert in what is being sold". Satisfactory quality Section 14(2) of the SGA 1979 contains the implied term which refers to the quality of the good in question. This section states that "when the seller sells goods in the course of a trade, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are of qualitysatisfactory". Until 1994 satisfactory quality was called merchantable quality, meaning that the goods were salable according to the contractual description given. This was replaced with satisfactory quality by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act, which amended section 14 (2) of the SGA 1979. Satisfactory quality includes the following; fitness for purpose, safety, durability, appearance and finish and absence of minor defects. The term satisfactory quality is implied, therefore, if the goods supplied do not conform to this implied term, a breach will be established. The buyer will be entitled to reject the goods, claim damages and will be entitled to terminate the contract. A buyer who does not examine the goods before entering into a contractual agreement tends to be in a stronger position than the person inspecting it. Although this may seem strange, it is simply the effect of section 14(2C)(b). Consequently, the buyer should not inspect the goods he intends to purchase at all, or if inspects them must do so carefully. This usually does not work in the buyer's favor, as those who are willing to purchase a good will want to inspect it carefully. However, it is possible that a defect may not be noticed during the inspection. This is especially the case in situations where the buyer would have to examine the good externally, internally or mechanically. If the goods purchased "meet the standard which a reasonable person would consider satisfactory, taking into account any description of the goods, the price and all other other relevant circumstances", they will be of satisfactory quality and therefore it will not be necessary to make a claim under the section 14(2) of the SGA. The reasonable person must be in the buyer's position (with his knowledge), since it would not be appropriate for the objective test to be that of a reasonable third party who does not have the same knowledge. The goods will be of satisfactory quality if a reasonable person would consider them to be so, taking into account the quality as defined by the SGA. It is the seller's responsibility to sell goods that are in satisfactory quality condition. If the seller does not comply with this, the buyer will have the legal right to complain. Will what is considered satisfactory depend on purchase price, description, etc.? If it is known that the purchased goods are second-hand, the buyer cannot expect them to be in perfect condition. The goods need only be of satisfactory quality. Therefore the buyer cannot do anything in his power to make a complaint. The implied condition relating to satisfactory quality will not benefit the buyer if he has examined the goods before entering into the contractual agreement. In the case of Thornett v Beers 1919, the purchaser carried out an examination and in doing so lost protection from section 14 of the SGA despite his examination being insufficient to detect a defect. Furthermore, if the buyer demonstrates that he did not rely on the seller's description, he may rely on those words for the purposes of section 14(3). However, a complaint under section 14(2) may be excluded by the wording of the examination provision. If a seller breaches the implied condition of satisfactory quality, the buyer will be entitled to claim a remedy, such as rejecting the goods if he has not accepted them. If you have accepted the goods, your breach of condition will be treated as a breach of warranty. The buyer has the advantage of requesting the seller repair or replace the goods. This will happen within a reasonable time and without causing inconvenience to the buyer. This reasonable time prevents sellers from spending their time on replacement and repair, which benefits the buyer. Alternatively it can.