The K-Zone: implied term by statute

An ImpliedTerm that arises because the contract is of a type that is governed by statute. The most obvious example is the SaleOfGoodsAct1979. 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: ConditionsAndWarranties).

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: HarlingdonAndLeinsterEnterprisesVChristopherHullFineArt1989. 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 SupplyOfGoodsAndServicesAct1982 provides similar provisions in contracts for service.

ContractLaw