Instructor’s Manual
The degree of fitness required is, of course, a question of fact. But the goods must be fit at the
time of sale, and not merely capable of being made so, for instance, by washing: Grant v
Australian Knitting Mills (1936).
Underpants contained a chemical which could be removed by washing.
Held: These goods were not of satisfactory quality.
There is some overlap between satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose. Satisfactory quality
is defined in terms of fitness for purposes for which goods of the appropriate class are
commonly bought. But the buyer may explain to the seller a particular purpose for which he
requires the goods. Then if the seller contracts with him, he is in general liable under S14 (3) if
the goods are not fit for that purpose.
If the buyer is going to use the goods for a purpose for which they are commonly used (e.g. hot
water bottle to be used to keep a person warm) then he need not specifically state to the seller
the purpose to which he intends to put the goods: Priest v Last (1903).
They buyer did not state the use of a hot water bottle for normal purposes. The hot water bottle
leaked.
Held: This did not prevent the buyer from successfully suing for breach of the condition that the
goods were fit for their purpose: the seller was presumed to have sold the bottle for normal use.
If the buyer is going to use the goods for a particular (unusual) purpose or there are unusual
circumstances then he must notify the seller of this in order to obtain protection under S 14 (3):
Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd (1939).
The buyer was allergic to a Harris tweed coat which was perfectly fit for a normal person.
Held: There was held to be no breach of condition of fitness for purpose as the buyer had not
told the seller of the special circumstances (i.e. her sensitivity to such fabric).
The implied term as to sale by sample: S 15
A sale by sample occurs when the buyer is given the opportunity of examining a small part only
of the goods to be bought, but such as to be typical of the whole, in this context usually called
the bulk of the goods.
In a contract for sale by sample there are implied conditions:
• That the bulk shall correspond with the sample in quality
• That the buyer shall have a reasonable opportunity of comparing the bulk with the sample
• That the goods shall be free from any defect rendering them unsatisfactory, which would
not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample: S15 (2).
The test under S15 (2) is one of ‘reasonable examination’ of the sample and not one of thorough
examination: Godley v Perry (1960).
A boy of six bought a catapult from the defendant’s news agency shop and damaged his eye
when it broke in his hands as a result of having been indifferently manufactured. The catapult
was part of a quantity bought by sample from a wholesaler and the defendant’s wife had tested
the sample beforehand by pulling back its elastic.