Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220; QB

Facts

The claimant, Mr. Bernstein, purchased a new Nissan Laurel motor car from the defendants, Pamson Motors, for £8,000. Three weeks after taking delivery, having driven the car for 140 miles, the engine completely seized while he was on the motorway. The car was towed to a service station and then back to the defendants’ premises. The cause of the failure was identified as a piece of sealant that had blocked the oil supply to the camshaft, which was a latent defect present from the time of manufacture. This constituted a clear breach of the implied condition of merchantable quality under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Mr. Bernstein sought to reject the car and recover the purchase price, whereas the defendants argued he was only entitled to damages as he had ‘accepted’ the car.

Issues

The central legal issue before the Queen’s Bench Division was whether the claimant had lost his right to reject the goods under section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the claimant had ‘accepted’ the car by retaining it for three weeks and driving it 140 miles, and whether this period constituted a ‘reasonable time’ within which he should have intimated his rejection. The case hinged on the proper construction of what constitutes a reasonable time for the purposes of acceptance, particularly in the context of complex consumer goods with latent defects.

Judgment

Rougier J delivered the judgment, holding that Mr. Bernstein had indeed lost his right to reject the car and was therefore only entitled to claim damages for the breach of condition. The judge ruled that the three-week period, combined with the usage of 140 miles, was more than a ‘reasonable time’ for the purposes of section 35 of the Act, and therefore the claimant was deemed to have accepted the goods.

The Meaning of ‘Reasonable Time’

The core of the judgment lay in the interpretation of ‘reasonable time’. Rougier J held that this period is not intended to allow a buyer to wait indefinitely for any and all latent defects to manifest themselves. Instead, it is the time within which a buyer has a reasonable opportunity to examine the goods to the extent a buyer would normally do, and decide whether to accept or reject them. The judge’s reasoning was that the nature of the specific defect and the time it might take to discover it were irrelevant to the calculation of this period. He stated:

I think that the nature of the particular defect, discovered or undiscovered, and the speed with which it might have been discovered, are irrelevant to the concept of a reasonable time in s 35(1). The question is, what is a reasonable practical interval in commercial terms between a buyer receiving the goods and his intimating his rejection of them? One must have regard to the nature of the goods. With a motor car, a reasonable time is to be measured in a matter of a few weeks rather than days or months…

The court concluded that for a complex item like a car, a period of three weeks provided ample time for the buyer to conduct necessary checks and decide on rejection. The fact that the catastrophic failure occurred suddenly and without prior warning did not extend this period. Once this reasonable time had lapsed, the buyer’s right to reject was lost, and the remedy was confined to damages.

Implications

The decision in Bernstein v Pamson Motors was highly significant as it established a strict and relatively short timeframe for the rejection of complex consumer goods, even in cases of fundamental, latent defects. It placed a considerable burden on the buyer to act quickly to reject goods, suggesting that the ‘reasonable time’ to reject was not coterminous with the time it might take for a hidden defect to become apparent. This interpretation was seen as favouring sellers by limiting the circumstances in which a buyer could rescind the contract. The judgment was widely criticised for being commercially unrealistic for consumers who might not discover a latent defect within a few weeks of normal use. Consequently, the law was subsequently reformed by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, which amended section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 to clarify that a buyer is not deemed to have accepted goods until they have had a reasonable opportunity to examine them, and that this is not lost merely by asking for or agreeing to a repair. The decision, therefore, represents a key point in the evolution of consumer rights, highlighting a judicial approach that was later deemed unsatisfactory by Parliament.

Verdict: The claimant, Mr. Bernstein, lost his right to reject the car and was only entitled to an award of damages for the breach of condition.