Issack v. Frank (PC) Civ. App. 10-A-7; 25/5/71; Bramble J.

Issack v. Frank (PC) Civ. App. 10-A-7; 25/5/71; Bramble J.

The respondent agreed to buy a trailer from the appellant. The price was fixed at Shs. 300/- if the respondent undertook to carry out the necessary repairs and Shs.500/- if the appellant did. The respondent decided to do the repairs and paid Shs. 300/-. He afterwards claimed that the differential and spring were not fitted because they were heavy and so the trailer was not suitable for the work he had in mind. The trial magistrate ordered a refund of the money because of a breach of contract sale. The District court Magistrate reversed the decision on the ground that after payment was made the respondent found out that the trailer was not suitable for his work and since it had not been moved from the appellant’s premises, he ought to refund the money. Appellant appealed.

            Held: (1) The District Court Magistrate failed to direct himself on the law relating to the sale of goods. “There was no evidence to suggest any expressed or implied warranty or condition as to the fitness of the goods for the respondent’s purpose.” Section 16(a) of the sale of Goods Ordinance (Cap. 214) states that there is no implied condition as to fitness for any purpose except: “Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment and the goods are of the description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether he be the manufacturer or not).” …….. “From the evidence the respondent had full inspection of the trailer and bought it with his eyes open. There was an outright sale and he cannot be heard to say now that the goods do not suit his purpose.” (3) Appeal allowed.