Implied term by statute

From Lawiki - The law notes repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Lawiki for and by law students - find us on Facebook if you want to help us edit this Law Wiki.

Not professional advice - LAWIKI cannot guarantee the validity of any information

An Implied term that arises because the contract is of a meta that is governed by statute. The most obvious example is the Sale of goods act (1979). This Act indicates not only that the term is implied, but whether it is to be treated as a condition or warranty of the contract (see: Conditions and warranties).

For example, there are conditions in the 1979 Act that the seller has the right to sell the goods, and that they match the description (s.12 and 13 respectively). If this turns out not to be the case, the buyer is entitled to repudiate the contract. These provisions apply to both private and business sales. Traditionally these provisions have been given great scope. For example, in Re Moore and Landauer (1921) the buyer of packs of tinned beans stated to contain 30 tins to a pack was held to be entitled to reject the goods when they were supplied 24 to a pack, even though the quantities were equivalent. More recently, the Court of Appeal has narrowed the scope a bit: Harlingdon and leinster enterprises v christopher hull fine art (1989). s.14 implies (in a rather convoluted way) that the goods supplied be of satisfactory quality, as would be assessed by a 'reasonable' person having regard to all the circumstances. This section does not apply to private sales. Note that this section is only a condition until the goods are 'accepted'; after this it becomes a warranty. Thus the buyer can only repudiate the contract until he accepts the goods. In Bernstein v Pamson Motors (1987) the purchaser of a defective car who drove it 140 miles was deemed to have accepted it. In the end, the buyer got a new car anyway, so we don't know what would have happened had he appealed. There are a number of limitations on s.14; for example, if the buyer has the opportunity to examine the goods, and examination would have revealed the defect, then the seller won't be in breach of contract.

The Supply of goods and services act (1982) provides similar provisions in contracts for service.

Contract Law