Sale of Goods Act 1979 CASES
The Sale of Goods Act 1979 consolidated and modernised English law governing the sale and purchase of goods, replacing and updating the earlier 1893 Act. While many consumer-related provisions have since been superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, the 1979 Act continues to apply primarily to business-to-business (B2B) transactions and private (non-consumer) sales.
Definition and Principles
This Act regulates contracts involving the transfer of ownership in goods from seller to buyer, outlining key rights, duties, and remedies. It introduced clearer protections and aligned the law with contemporary commercial practices.
Key Changes from the 1893 Act
- Implied Terms Strengthened: Enhanced implied conditions ensuring goods are of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and match their description.
- Commercial Clarity: Improved clarity regarding seller obligations, particularly around quality and fitness for specific purposes.
- Remedies Clarified: Clearly outlined remedies available to buyers, including rights to reject defective goods or demand repair and replacement.
Current Applicability
- Primarily governs B2B sales and private transactions.
- Consumer transactions now governed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Practical Importance
Understanding the 1979 Act remains crucial for businesses to clearly define their rights and obligations, promoting fair trade and reducing disputes in commercial transactions.
Home » Sale of Goods Act 1979
A company purchased a car through a conditional sale agreement. The car's roof leaked badly and was unfit for purpose. The Court of Appeal held that the company was 'dealing as consumer' under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 despite being a business, because purchasing vehicles was not integral to...
An art dealer sold a painting attributed to Gabriele Münter to another dealer for £6,000, but it was later discovered to be a forgery. The buyer claimed breach of the implied condition under s.13(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (sale by description). The Court of Appeal held there...
Farmers ordered cabbage seed but received seed that produced unmarketable plants without hearts due to the supplier's negligence. The seed merchants sought to rely on a limitation clause restricting liability to refunding the purchase price. The Court of Appeal held the clause did not protect against negligence and was unreasonable...
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...