LAW OF SALES OF GOODS 1. Title The seller has the right to sell the goods.

This covers situations where the seller is selling stolen goods. Rowland v Divall [1923] The claimant, a car dealer, bought a car from the defendant for 334. He painted the car and put it in his showroom and sold it to a customer for 400. Two months later the car was impounded by the police as it had been stolen. It was then returned to the original owner. Both the claimant and defendant were unaware that the car had been stolen. The claimant returned the 400 to the customer and brought a claim against the defendant under the Sale of Goods Act. Held: The defendant did not have the right to sell the goods as he did not obtain good title from the thief. Ownership remained with the original owner. The defendant had 2 months use of the car which he did not have to pay for and the claimant was not entitled to any compensation for the work carried out on the car. 2. Sale by description Where there is a contract for the sale of goods by description, there is an implied term that the goods will correspond with the description. A contract for the sale of a quantity of wooden staves for making barrels described the staves as being 1/2 an inch thick. Some of the staves delivered were not 1/2 an inch thick but very slightly out. There was nothing wrong with the quality of the wood and they could still be used for the intended purpose of making barrels. The buyer rejected the goods as the price of wood had fallen and he could purchase them cheaper elsewhere. Held: The purchasers were entitled to reject the goods as they were not as described. A contract for the sale of 3,100 tins of peaches described the tins as being packed in cases of 30. When they arrived the tins were packed in cases of 24 although the agreed overall number of tins was supplied. Held: The purchaser was entitled to reject the goods as they were not as described. 3. Merchantable quality The goods supplied under the contract are of satisfactory quality. The defendant was a fisherman. He sold his fishing boat to the claimant. The claimant brought an action against the defendant claiming the boat was not of satisfactory quality. S.14 only applies to the sale of goods sold in the course of a business. The defendant argued that the sale of the boat was not in the course of his business. His business was catching fish and selling them, he was not in the business of buying and selling fishing boats. Held: The sale was in the course of the business and therefore the defendant did have to ensure the boat was of satisfactory quality. The claimant purchased a second hand sports car from a car dealer. The car gave him constant problems and he then discovered that the car had previously been in an accident and had been totally submerged in water. The claimant brought an action. Held: Where the contract is a consumer sale the courts apply the acceptability test. This asks would a reasonable purchaser have accepted the goods at the stated price knowing of the fault. Clearly in this case a reasonable purchaser would not have accepted the goods and therefore the seller was in breach. 4. Sale by sample The bulk will correspond with the sample in quality.