Rowland V Divall Case Study

Contract for the sale of goods

The 1893 Act states a contract for the sale of goods as “a contract whereby the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration called the price”. Transfer by a pledge, gift, loan, mortgage or credit contract doesn’t included. The definition of a contract for the sale of goods includes two separate transactions: a “sale” and an “agreement to sell”. When ownership is transferred from the seller to the buyer, the contract is known as “sale”. While “agreement to sell” simply means that the ownership of goods is to be transferred in future or subject is to be fulfilled later in some condition.

Terms of the sale of goods contract

A sale of goods contract is like

12 of the combined Acts that the seller has or will have when property in the goods is to be transferred, a right to sell the goods. If a buyer purchases goods from a seller who has not a good title to the goods, the buyer must return the goods to the real owner and could recover the total price paid for the goods, on the grounds that there has been a total failure of consideration.

Case: Rowland v. Divall (1923)

The defendant sold a car, which unknown to him had been stolen, to the plaintiff, who subsequently sold it to a third party. The true owner of the car later recovered it from the third party, who was fully reimbursed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff then sued the defendant to recover the full price originally paid by him, but the defendant argued that allowance should be made for the use of the car before it had been returned to the true owner. Held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole purchase price, without any set off for the use of the car. Since the contract was for the transfer of ownership of the car and not merely the right to use it, there had been a total failure of consideration.

14 of the combined Acts, there is an implied condition that where goods are sold in the course of a business and the buyer expressly, or by implication, makes known to the seller that every goods supplied under the contract must be fit for the purpose. The implied terms of fitness of goods for a disclosed purpose are excluded on these circumstances that buyer did not rely on the seller’s skill and judgment or it would not be reasonable for buyer to rely on the seller’s skill and judgment.

Case: Godley v. Perry (1960)

The plaintiff purchased a catapult from the defendant. It broke whilst being used by the plaintiff and resulted in him losing an eye. Held: The purpose of the purchase was known by implication. Because it was not an effective catapult, it was in breach of s. 14.

Supply of services

The 1980 Act has presented implied terms into contracts of supply of services, which the supplier is acting in the course of a business, the supplier requires necessary skills in order to render service, the supplier will supply services with care, skill and diligence, materials used will be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are required and goods will be of merchantable quality if it supplied under the contract. Any implied term of contract for supply of services can be negotiated or changed by using express term of