Commercial Law

Law of Sale
Assignment

Student ID Number
Module Code
Batch Code
Word Count

:
:
:
:

13001193
LWA90076-5
IF1491LLB
2493

Page 1 of 14

This question focuses on Agro Ltd.s possible liability to Bill under the Sale of Goods Act
(SGA) 1979.
It can be assumed that Agro Ltd. (henceforth referred to as Agro), being the manufacturers
and retail suppliers of gardening requisites, is acting in the course of a business with
accordance to the Unfair Terms of Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR) 1999 reg3(1)
which defines a seller as a natural or legal person who acts for purposes related to business in
selling goods1.
On the other hand, it is necessary to identify if Bill Green, the buyer, is either a consumer
buyer or a business buyer, as this could affect the grounds on which Agro may be liable to
him, as well as the remedies available to him. It can be derived from the scenario that Bill
was acting in the course of a business2. Therefore this transaction could one between two
businesses.
It is assumed that the transaction between Agro and Bill is by way of a contract of sale3, and
may be termed as a sale4. Further, it is assumed that this is a consensual transaction,
complying with the principles of offer, acceptance and consideration in basic contract law;
and it is clear from the facts that this contract of sale is in accordance with s 45 as it is writing,
in the form of a sales invoice6.
The fertiliser, Apple Gro, constitutes the subject matter of the contract, in the form of
existing7, specific goods which are identified and agreed on at the time a contract of sale is
made8.
In order to establish grounds for claim, it is necessary to consider if the goods sold (Apple
Gro fertiliser) conforms to the implied terms provided in the SGA 19799.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, reg 3(1)

This is with regard to the fact that he sold most of his harvest to the local greengrocer, and also that he had
previously won prize money for his apples at local horticultural shows. This could be interpreted to mean that
apart from his regular profession, Bill also relied on his apples to make money
3
A contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money
consideration, called price, as provided in s 2(1) of the 1979 Act.
4
SGA 1979, s 2(4)
5
SGA 1979, s 4 states that a contract of sale can be made in writing, by word of mouth, partly in writing and
partly by word of mouth, or by the conduct of the parties.
6
P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) ch 1
7
SGA 1979, s 5
8
SGA 1979, s 61 defines goods for the purposes of a contract of sale as all personal chattels other than things
in action and money and also includes emblements, industrial growing crops, and things attached to or forming
part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale.
9
In contracts for the sale of goods and supply of services, purchasers are provided protection by way of
fundamental criteria stated in SGA 1979, ss 12-15 9 which relate to the title of goods, the description of goods,
the satisfactory quality of the goods, and their fitness for purpose, and goods sold on sample), and the Supply of
Goods and Services Act 1982.
2

Page 2 of 14

Section 12 Title
There are no purports that Agro does not have the right to sell the product, so there is no
breach of s1210 which implies a condition that the seller must have the right to sell the goods.
And as there seems to be no apparent encumbrances on the face of the goods, the warranty
implied by s12(2)(a)11 is not in breach either12.
Section 13 Sale by Description
The requirement of a sale by description provided for in s13(1)13 which states that where
there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term14 that the
goods correspond with the description. It is important, however, to note that a contract of sale
is not a sale by description simply because a description was affixed to the goods. However,
in modern context this would seem the case, following the judgement in Grant v Australian
Knitting Mills15 where the goods were before the parties at the time of contract16.
The description must also substantially relate to the product, and the buyer must have relied
on the said description in purchasing the product, as established in the cases of Reardon
Smith Line v Yngvar Hansen Tangen17 and Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v
Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd18.
The name of the product in itself indicates that it promotes growth. Whilst there are two
approaches in determining how far must good correspond with their description, the one is
current use is the broad approach which was ascertained from the case of Ashington Piggeries
Ltd v Christopher Hill19, where it was held that the goods need not strictly adhere to their
description20
Further, Bill seemed to have been inundated with the variety of fertilisers available, so he
relied on the description attached to the product Apple Gro, in addition to the advice of the
sales assistant present. This shows his reliance on the description of the product, which would
help cement his claim against the breach of s13 of the Act.
10

SGA 1979, s 12
SGA 1979, s 12(1)(a) implies a warranty that the goods are be free from encumbrances not disclosed to the
seller at the time of sale.
12
P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) ch 9
13
SGA 1979, s 13(1)
14
Section 13(1) is a condition in consumer transactions, but is an innominate term business transactions.
15
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1935] All ER Rep 209 (PC) this case is somewhat a contrast to the
case of Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 (QBD) where the contract was held to be a sale by description
although the goods, which were specific goods, were not present before the parties at the time of contract.
16
Michael Furmston and Jason Chuah (eds), Commercial and Consumer Law (Pearson 2010) 185
17
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 (HL) Held: the yard number did not form part
of the description.
18
Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 All ER 737 (CA) Held: the
buyers (plaintiff) had not relied on the description, as they had better knowledge.
19
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 847 (HL) Held: no breach of SGA 1979, s13
because the goods were described in the contract as herring meal and what the seller provided was herring
meal, although it was contaminated and not fit for the purpose of feeding mink.
20
Narrow approach Re Moore & Co & Landauer & Co Ltd [1921] 1 KB 73 (KBD) and Arcos Ltd v EA
Ronaasen & Son [1933] All ER Rep 646 (HL) buyer entitled to reject the goods as they did not conform to
their provided descriptions although the nonconformity was slight.
11

Page 3 of 14

Section 14 Satisfactory Quality

Section 14 of the Act21 states where the seller, in the course of a business, sells goods; there is
an implied term that the goods supplied are of satisfactory quality. The first part of the
provision which requires the seller to be dealing as a business is satisfied, as it is inferred
from the case facts that Agro is a business seller22.
In order for Bill to formulate a claim against Agro it must be proved that the goods supplied
were not of satisfactory quality as required by s1423. The term satisfactory quality which
replaced the merchantable quality in the former Act, was introduced by the Sale and Supply
of Goods Act 1994. The case of Henry Kendall v William Lillico24 defined merchantable as
acceptable and usable; however the definition that is currently used is contained in s14(2A)25.
This provision requires an objective test to be fulfilled, as demonstrated in the case of Jewson
Ltd v Kelly26. With regard to the facts at hand, the goods seem to be unsatisfactory, as it failed
to effectively fertilise the crops. However, it is not possible to say at the outset if there is a
possible breach of s14 simply by fulfilling the objective test. Section 14(2B) states that the
quality of the goods includes several other aspects as well, including fitness for all purposes
for which the good of the kind are commonly used27. Further, the exceptions to s14(2)28, and
the implications of s14(3), under which goods are required to be fit for a particular purpose
must also be considered29.
Under s14(2B), the goods are deemed to be of satisfactory quality if the appearance and
finish of the goods reasonably satisfactory, and if they are free from minor defects as the case

21

SGA 1979, s14

In the course of a business - Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 (CA) - transaction must be integral to
business activity.
R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd (Saunders Abbott (1980) Ltd, third party) [1988]
1 All ER 847 (CA) - in certain circumstances habitual dealing is not required, though generally a degree of
regularity must be established.
23
SGA 1979, s14
24
Kendall (Henry) & Sons (a firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 444 (HL)
25
SGA 1979, s14(2A) which states that goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a
reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if
relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances
26
Jewson Ltd v Kelly [2003] All ER (D) 470 (Jul) (CA) Held: goods fit for common purpose. However energy
efficiency was not something a reasonable person would expect from a boiler, so the plaintiffs appeal was
rejected.
27
SGA 1979, s14(2B) states, the quality of goods includes their state and condition and the following (among
others) (a)fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied;
(b)appearance and finish; (c)freedom from minor defects; (d)safety, and (e) durability.
28
SGA 1979, s14(2C) : s14(2) does not extend to any matter making the quality of goods unsatisfactory
(a)which is specifically drawn to the buyers attention before the contract is made,
(b)where the buyer examines the goods before the contract is made, which that examination ought to reveal, or
(c) In the case of a contract for sale by sample, which would have been apparent on a reasonable examination of
the sample.
29
SGA 1979, s14(3) : Where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the buyer, expressly or by
implication, makes known any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an
implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not that is
a purpose for which such goods are commonly supplied, except where the circumstances show that the buyer
does not rely, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill or judgment of the seller.
22

Page 4 of 14

of Rogers v Parish30established, provided that the defects are not extremely insignificant31.
Additionally, the goods must be safe and must also remain durable for a reasonable amount
of time32 as was illustrated in decided cases33. The scenario does not state anything to such
effect that were inherently faulty, or that they lacked durability at the time of purchase.
The question here is whether the fertiliser is fit for common purpose34 under s14(2B), or if it
is fit for particular purpose under s14(3). The case of Henry Kendall v William Lillico35
established that if the buyer complains that the goods are unsuitable for the purposes for
which he wants to use it, he must do so under s14(3).
Section14(3) requires that the seller be informed, expressly or impliedly, of the particular
purpose for which the goods will be used. It is important to note that whilst the goods need
not be absolutely fit for the purpose, they must be reasonably so36. Here, the product Apple
Gro is indicative in itself of its particular purpose (it is a fertiliser for enhancement in
growth of apples); which the court will accept as implied knowledge37. In Wren v Holt38 the
CA held that since the buyer had not relied on the seller39, there was no breach of s14(3).
However, this can be contrasted with the situation at hand, where Bill relies on the sales
assistants recommendation to make his choice. It must be taken into account that according
to the case of Frost v Aylesbury Dairies40even partial reliance on the seller can result in
liability41.
Whilst instructions and warnings would generally allow the seller to escape liability, where
such information is not provided, or is inadequate, the seller can be held liable following the
judgement in Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v B D H Chemicals42, provided the goods were
used as instructed43. Seeing how Bill was provided inadequate warning, and that he had

30

Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 232 (CA)

In the case of Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2008] 1 All ER 1156n (CA) Held: one wheel of the car being
out of specification was insufficient to make the car unsatisfactory.
32
What is a reasonable amount of time will depend on the nature of the goods and the circumstances of the case.
33
Mash and Murrell Ltd v Joseph I Emanuel Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 485 (QBD)
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220 (QBD)
Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre [1997] (Sh Ct) 102
34
In order to be fit for common purpose, the goods must be fit for all purposes for which they can be used,
regardless of whether the buy is a business or a consumer.
35
Kendall (n 23)
36
Paul Dobson and Rob Stokes, Commercial Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 142-43
37
Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (n 15)
Preist v Last [1903] 2 KB 148
38
Wren v Holt [1903] 1 KB 610 (CA)
39
P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) 192-95 Reliance
on the sellers skill and judgement if reasonable will depend on factors such as: if the seller disclaims
knowledge of the goods (see Harlingdon & Leinster (n 17)); where the buyer provides insufficient detail; and if
the buyer has expert knowledge and the seller does not (see Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v S T Belton (Tractors)
Ltd [1968] 2 All ER 886 (CA))
40
Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co [1905] 1 KB 608 (CA)
41
P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) 199-200
Also see Ashington Piggeries (n 18)
42
Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v B D H Chemicals Ltd (formerly British Drug Houses Ltd) [1970] 3 All ER 553
(CA)
43
Wormell v RHM Agriculture (East) Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 75 (CA)
31

Page 5 of 14

complied with the instructions provided44, it is possible to conclude that Bill can claim for
breach of s14 against Agro.
Section 15 Sale by Sample
Section 15 of the SGA 1979 is applicable where the buyer selects goods from a sample
shown, and it implies that the goods will correspond with the sample in quality. As this was a
direct transaction, and Bill did not rely on a sample, this section will not apply.
Conclusively, Bill may claim against Agro for breach of s13 and s14(3) of the SGA 1979.

44

In the scenario, Bill refers to the description of the product, Apple Gro, and he uses it according to the
instructions provided, yet the results proved to be unsatisfactory as the fertiliser had been washed due to
inopportune rainfall after Bill had sprayed it. Previously, Bill had used a different type of fertiliser which was
not prone to being washed away by rain, so he was not aware such a possibility seeing that he was not given
appropriate prior warning.

Page 6 of 14

Page 7 of 14

In the occasion that Agro is in breach of the contract of sale, an analysis of clauses 1-3 would
have to be conducted in order to ascertain if they exclude or limit liability in a reasonable
manner.
Firstly, it is important to note that the contract for sale is being operated on Agros standard
terms in the form of an invoice. This could translate into Agro transacting through the means
of a standard form contract45, within which the clauses to be considered are contained. Next,
to verify the validity of the terms, it is necessary to check if they have been incorporated into
the contract and are duly constructed under the common law principles. Any clause is of no
effect if it has not been properly incorporated46 at the time the contract is made47. It is
immaterial if the buyer has read the clauses, specially where the other party has signed the
document containing the clauses48 as it is in Bills situation. Further, the buyer must be given
reasonable notice of the terms49, particularly where they are more onerous50. This is arguable
in this scenario, as Argo has not sought to draw attention to their terms. Terms may be
incorporated through trade customs51; and also through previous course of dealings52 which is
not applicable here as there is no evidence to suggest that Bill has transacted with Agro
before.
Once it has been established that the clauses have been appropriately incorporated, there is a
need to check if they are properly constructed; to examine if the clauses have been worded
accordingly to cover the breach53, and if they are in clear and precise language. Where a
clause is held to be ambiguous, the principle of contra proferentem would apply54. Once the
clauses have been deemed to be incorporated, they are required to be in conformity with
statutory controls, which, if not adhered to, may nullify terms. The statute applicable would
depend on the type of transaction: business or consumer. As was discussed above, it is

45

P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) 216-219
See Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn (England) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965 (CA) battle of the
forms
46
Paul Dobson and Rob Stokes, Commercial Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 184-88
47
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (CA) no clause can be subsequently incorporated (after
a contract is made)
48
L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] All ER Rep 16 (DC) incorporation through signature
But also note: Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co & Dyeing [1951] 1 KB 805 if there is a misrepresentation of
terms, it will be void.
49
Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41 (CA)
50
Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 348 (CA) Red Hand
Principle
51
British Crane Hire Corpn Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 1059 (CA)
52
Spurling (J) Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121 (CA) terms may be incorporated if there is a history of
similar dealings between both parties.
McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 430 (HL) previous dealings must be consistent.
Hollier v Rambler Motors (AmC) Ltd [1972] 1 All ER 399 (CA) a term will be incorporated only if there is a
sufficient number of dealings.
Kendall (n 23) all requirements of previous course of dealings was satisfied.
53
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556 (HL) liability for even a fundamental
breach can be excluded where it covered by a suitably constructed clause.
54
The University of Keele v Price Waterhouse [2004] EWCA Civ 583 - Contra Proferentem: where a term is
ambiguous, it will be construed against the party who included it.

Page 8 of 14

inferred that Bill is a business buyer55, so accordingly the applicable statutory controls would
stem from the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA) 197756.
Clause One
Under the first clause, Agro attempts to limit liability for noncompliance with ss13 and 14 of
the SGA 1979. Section 3 of the UCTA 1977 imposes restrictions on the seller (subject to the
test of reasonableness): liability for breach of contract cannot be limited or excluded;
substantially different performance or no performance cannot be provided. However under
s6(3)57, with regard to s11 reasonableness, and Sch 258, it may not be allowed to limit liability
for ss13 and 14, SGA 1979 as adequate warning about the effect of rainfall on the fertiliser
was not provided.
Clause Two
This clause seeks to impose a time restriction for claims, and is again covered by s6(3) with
regard to Sch 2 and s11 of the UCTA 1977. As the product is a fertiliser, any defect in it
would not be readily visible. In fact it would be after the crops have grown would its effect
show, so considering that, the allocated time period would be grossly insufficient, seeing how
the product was bought in March and had to be applied in June/July following the case of
Green Ltd v Cade Bros59. It is a particularly onerous clause, as not only does it try to enforce
time constraints, but by implication it also excludes liability for all negligence liability claims
after the 21 day period. Section 2 of the Act does not allow exclusion for negligence liability
for death or injury60, and only permits limitation of liability if reasonable for other losses61.
As such this clause would appear to be void as it would fail the test of reasonableness.
Clause Three
Here, there is an attempt to exclude liability for breach of s14(3) of the SGA 1979, which is
in may be in breach of s6(3), UCTA 1977. Also, this clause is in conflict with the first where
liability is limited for breach of s14, SGA 1979. As such, the Courts may deem this an
unclear/ambiguous term and may either declare the clause void with regard to failure of s11
reasonableness; or the Courts may apply the contra proferentem rule, whereby the clause
would be enforced against Agro.
In conclusion, the first clause may be considered reasonable, whereas clauses two and three
would be invalid.
55

The UCTA 1977 also refers to consumer transactions; however it does not apply to insurance contracts;
transactions related to land; copyrights; trademarks; patents; and transfer of securities.
56
UCTA 1977, s3 covers contracts where one party deals on the others standard terms, or consumer
transactions.
57
UCTA 1977, s6(3) allows for SGA 1979, ss13, 14, 15 to be excluded/limited against a business buyer if
reasonable.
58
UCTA 1977, Sch 2 provides extra guidelines for the application of s6.
59
Green (R W) Ltd v Cade Bros Farms [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 602 (QBD)
Mitchell (George) (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 All ER 737 (HL)
St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd [1996] 4 All ER 481 (CA)
60
UCTA 1977, s2(1)
61
UCTA 1977, s2(2)

Page 9 of 14

Page 10 of 14

In the event that Agro is liable for breach of contract, Bill is allowed to either accept the
goods or reject them62. Bill has accepted the fertiliser in accordance with s35 SGA 197963 by
way of express intimation64. Acceptance is significant as it renders the buyer unable to reject
goods, whereas mere delivery and passing of ownership allows buyer to reject goods. Hence,
Bill is not allowed to reject the fertiliser under s11(2), SGA 1979. Neither will he be able to
recover the purchase price under s54, SGA 1979 for failure of consideration, as it is allowed
only where the goods are not delivered, which is not the case here.
However, Bill may be allowed to claim damages for breach of warranty under s53(1) instead
of simply claiming a refund as he wishes to be compensated for several losses. The test
applied here, as established in Vacwell Engineering65 is whether the damage could have been
reasonably predicted, had the seller known of the defect at the time of the contract. The
defect in this case is that the fertiliser was washed away by rain. If Agro had issued relevant
warning about the effect of rainfall66 such an issue would not have risen.
Further, the Prima Facie Market Value rule under s53(3)67 would not be very useful here as
the resale of goods was not in contemplation at the time of contract68. Nevertheless, Bill may
claim for direct and natural losses under limb 1 of Hadley v Baxendale, as provided under
s53(2)69 if they are not too remote70. Thus, he may recover the value of the fertiliser.
Bill can also claim for his other losses, such as the sub-sale of crops, prize money, stress, and
opportunity for promotion through limb 2 of Hadley v Baxendale as provided in s54 which
allows claims for special losses. This can be by way of damages for reliance loss as in the
case of Anglia TV v Reed71 - for the price of sub-sale and the prize money. The case of
Hamilton Jones72 shows precedent in claiming damages for mental distress, and Dunk v
George Waller73sets precedent in claiming for future prospects.
Therefore, Bill may be compensated for his losses under ss53(1), 53(2) and 5474, for losses
arising from the breach itself, and special damages respectively.

62

P S Atiyah, J N Adams and H MacQueen, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson 2010) 504-22
Paul Dobson and Rob Stokes, Commercial Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 238-43
Robert Bradgate, Commercial Law (4th edn, OUP 2011) ch12
63
SGA 1979, s35 buyer is deemed to have accepted goods when (a) acceptance is intimated (s35(1)(a)); (b)
goods are delivered, buyer acts inconsistently with sellers ownership (s35(1)(b); or if he keeps them for a
reasonable lapse of time with intimation of acceptance (s35(4)).
64
Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 (QBD)
65
Vacwell Engineering v B D H Chemicals Ltd (n 41)
66
Temperature, rainfall and sunshine time-series (Met Office)
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly> accessed 15 December 2014
67
Saipol SA v Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWCH 2211
68
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1997] 1 All ER 979 (CA)
69
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 23 LJ Ex 179 (Exch Ct)
70
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
71
Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1971] 3 All ER 690 (CA)
72
Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (a firm) [2004] 1 All ER 657 (Ch D)
73
Dunk v George Waller & Son Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 630 (CA)
74
SGA 1979

Page 11 of 14

Bibliography
Primary Sources
Legislation
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Sale of Goods Act 1979

Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

Cases
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Anglia Television Ltd v Reed [1971] 3 All ER 690 (CA)

Arcos Ltd v EA Ronaasen & Son [1933] All ER Rep 646 (HL)
Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 847 (HL)
Bence Graphics International Ltd v Fasson UK Ltd [1997] 1 All ER 979 (CA)
Bernstein v Pamson Motors (Golders Green) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 220 (QBD)
British Crane Hire Corpn Ltd v Ipswich Plant Hire Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 1059 (CA)
Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corpn (England) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 965
(CA)
8. Chapelton v Barry UDC [1940] 1 KB 532 (CA)
9. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co & Dyeing [1951] 1 KB 805
10. Dunk v George Waller & Son Ltd [1970] 2 All ER 630 (CA)
11. Egan v Motor Services (Bath) Ltd [2008] 1 All ER 1156n (CA)
12. Frost v Aylesbury Dairy Co [1905] 1 KB 608 (CA)
13. Grant v Australian Knitting Mills Ltd [1935] All ER Rep 209 (PC)
14. Green (R W) Ltd v Cade Bros Farms [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep 602 (QBD)
15. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 23 LJ Ex 179 (Exch Ct)
16. Hamilton Jones v David & Snape (a firm) [2004] 1 All ER 657 (Ch D)
17. Harlingdon & Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd [1990] 1 All
ER 737 (CA)
18. Hollier v Rambler Motors (AmC) Ltd [1972] 1 All ER 399 (CA)
19. Interfoto Picture Library Ltd v Stiletto Visual Programmes Ltd [1988] 1 All ER 348
(CA)
20. Kendall (Henry) & Sons (a firm) v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 All ER 444
(HL) Jewson Ltd v Kelly [2003] All ER (D) 470 (Jul) (CA)
21. L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] All ER Rep 16 (DC)
22. Mash and Murrell Ltd v Joseph I Emanuel Ltd [1961] 1 All ER 485 (QBD)
23. McCutcheon v David MacBrayne Ltd [1964] 1 All ER 430 (HL)
24. Mitchell (George) (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 All ER 737
(HL)
25. Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (CA)
26. Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] 1 All ER 556 (HL)
27. Preist v Last [1903] 2 KB 148
Page 12 of 14

28. R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd (Saunders Abbott
(1980) Ltd, third party) [1988] 1 All ER 847 (CA)
29. Re Moore & Co & Landauer & Co Ltd [1921] 1 KB 73 (KBD)
30. Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 1 WLR 989 (HL)
31. Rogers v Parish (Scarborough) Ltd [1987] 2 All ER 232 (CA)
32. Saipol SA v Inerco Trade SA [2014] EWCH 2211
33. Spurling (J) Ltd v Bradshaw [1956] 2 All ER 121 (CA)
34. St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd [1996] 4 All ER
481 (CA)
35. Stevenson v Rogers [1999] 1 All ER 613 (CA)
36. Teheran-Europe Co Ltd v S T Belton (Tractors) Ltd [1968] 2 All ER 886 (CA)
37. Thain v Anniesland Trade Centre [1997] (Sh Ct) 102
38. The University of Keele v Price Waterhouse [2004] EWCA Civ 583
39. Thompson v LMS Railway [1930] 1 KB 41 (CA)
40. Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 WLR 585 (CA)
41. Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v B D H Chemicals Ltd (formerly British Drug Houses
Ltd) [1970] 3 All ER 553 (CA)
42. Varley v Whipp [1900] 1 QB 513 (QBD)
43. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528
44. Wormell v RHM Agriculture (East) Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 75 (CA)
45. Wren v Holt [1903] 1 KB 610 (CA)

Secondary Sources
Books
1. Atiyah P S, Adams J N and MacQueen H, Atiyahs Sale of Goods (12th edn, Pearson
2010) 504-22
2. Benjamin J P, Benjamin on Sale (7th edn, 2006)
3. Bradgate R, Commercial Law (4th edn, OUP 2011)
4. Dobson P and Stokes R, Commercial Law (8th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 238-43
5. Furmston M and Chuah J (eds), Commercial and Consumer Law (Pearson 2010)
6. Macleod J K, Consumer Sales Law (2nd end, Routledge-Cavendish 2007)
7. Riches S and Allen V, Keenan & Riches Business Law (10th edn, Longman 2011)
8. Saidov D and Cunnington R (eds), Contract Damages: Domestic and International
Perspectives (Hart Publishing 2008)

Articles
1. Dobson P, The Sale & Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 (2003)
NLJ 9
2. Ervine W C H, Satisfactory Quality: What does it mean? [2004] JBL 684
3. Hedley S, Fitness for the buyers peculiar purpose [1996] 4 Web JCLI
4. Kramer A, Money isnt everything contract damages for non-pecuniary loss
(2003) SL Rev 39, 15-17
Page 13 of 14

5. Lawson R, Damages and Subsales not so sugar sweet (2004) 154 NLJ 1188
6. Lewis M and Charlotte H, No Room for Ambiguity (2004) 154 NLJ 1128
7. Ottley M, Construing contractual documents the factual matrix (2005) SL Rev 45,
17-18

Law Commission Reports

1. Law Commission, Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts: A New Approach? Issues
Paper (July 2012) <
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/unfair_terms_in_consumer_contracts_issue
s.pdf> accessed on 15 December 2014

Websites
1. Temperature, rainfall and sunshine time-series (Met Office)
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly> accessed 15
December 2014

Page 14 of 14