Sale of goods act s 14
To this extent, I agree with the approach of Colman J in Navigas Ltd v Enron Liquid Fuels Ltd, but if he meant to go further and to cast doubt on the proposition that goods sold under an FOB contract must be merchantable not only at delivery but also for a reasonable time thereafter, I respectfully disagree with him. However, where the seller does not know the destination of the goods, it is not appropriate in my opinion to adopt the concept of a “normal voyage” as the measure of what is a reasonable time. # In CIF and C&F contracts, where the seller knows the destination of the goods, Mash & Murrell is accordingly authority for the proposition that the time taken to complete a normal voyage will be the basic measure of what is a reasonable time. And in respect of the term to be implied at common law, if the seller has bound himself to supply goods of a particular specification, I think it plain that in the absence of any inconsistent term he is to be taken to have agreed that the goods should remain on specification for a reasonable time after delivery. 14 (2B) makes “durability” an aspect of “satisfactory quality”. 14 (2) of the 1979 Act is concerned, my conclusion is fortified by the fact s. # So far as the term to be implied under s. Hence Diplock J’s words quoted in paragraph 16 above:Įrchantability in the case of goods sold cif or c&f means that the goods must remain merchantable for a reasonable time and that in the case of such contracts a reasonable time means time for arrival and disposal upon arrival. At the heart of that reasoning was the acceptance of Atkin J’s view based on Beer v Walker that the condition that the goods must be merchantable means that they must be in that condition when appropriated to the contract and that they will continue so for a reasonable time. 14 (2) of the 1893 Act and at common law. I reach this conclusion for the same reasons that Diplock J gave in Mash & Murrell for upholding the buyer’s alternative claims under s. Such a term is also to be implied at common law with the additional dimension that the goods should not only be of satisfactory quality for a reasonable time but also should remain in accordance with the contractual specification (if any) for such a period. 14 (2) of the 1979 Act that the goods will be of satisfactory quality not only when the cargo is delivered on to the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter. # In my judgement, in the absence of any term inconsistent therewith, there is to be implied into an FOB contract a term under s. This is supported by the fact that section 14(2) makes “durability” an aspect of “satisfactory quality” The main focus was that in any FOB contract, unless stated otherwise, a term is to be implied under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that the goods will be of satisfactory quality not only when delivered onto the vessel but also for a reasonable time thereafter. Note that SOGA Implied terms are classified as conditions and, therefore, any attempt to exclude them can only be achieced by drafting an exclusion clause in specific terms. Goods must be of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and at common law not only on delivery but for a reasonable time thereafter. KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineralöle mbh & Co KG -v- Petroplus Marketing AG EWHC 1088