Sale of Goods Act 1979 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Sale of Goods lick 1979 - Essay ExampleSection 13(1A) of This Act provides as regards England and Wales, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition. Under Section 13 of the Act there is an implied condition in a contract of cut-rate sale, upon the supplier of a service in a contract that the goods allow map with the exposition, which will apply to any sale where the purchaser does not see the goods before he buys them & when playacting in the course of a business that he will elevator carry out the service with sightly contractual period.Even if the purchaser has seen the goods, there may be a sale by explanation if he has relied upon the comment. In this question it need to discuss While description itself is an ordinary English word, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 contains no definition of what it means when it speaks (in Section 13) of a contract for the sale of goods being a sale by description. And then it needs to discuss that a contract is from between parti es when the seller was agreeing to sell and the buyer agreeing to buy. outright it need to discuss about condition, sale by description, current possession, and misrepresentation.First, one has to decide what is the meaning of sale by description. In the case of Varley v Whipp1 it has been held that this phrase must apply to all cases where the purchaser has not seen the goods just is relying on the description alone. Therefore, a sale must be by description if it is of future, or unascertained goods. exclusively in addition, the term applies in many cases even where the buyer has seen the goods. Not only the term sale by description includes goods of a generic kind, for example, a packet of brand X cigarettes but to a fault specific goods when they are sold as a thing corresponding to description. In the case of Beale v Taylor2 the subject matter of the contract was described as a 1961 Triumph Herald Convertible and the complainant saw the car and bought it. In fact, it morose out to be two different cars joined together. It was held that the car did not comply with the description. In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills 1936 the sale of woollen underwear was held to be a sale by description even though the buyer was acquire something displayed before him on the counter.But a sale is not a sale by description where the buyer makes it clear that he is buying a particular thing because of its unique qualities, and that no some other will do, or where there is absolutely no reliance by the buyer on the description (Harlingdon Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd3). In other words it appears that the only case of a sale not being by description occurs where the buyer makes it clear that he is buying a particular thing because of its unique qualities and that no other will do. For this reason, the sale of manufactured item will nearly always be a sale by description (except where it is second hand) because articles made to an equal design are not generally bo ught as unique goods but as goods corresponding to that design. In the Harlingdon case, the buyer was a professional art dealer who knew the seller had no experience or companionship of the type of painting being said. There was accordingly no breach of s. 13 when the painting turned out to be a forgery. The buyer had placed no reliance on the sellers description.These cases suggest that the material question at issue in deciding whether the sale should be classified as a