Hi, need to submit a 3000 words essay on the topic Sale of Goods Act 1979.Download file to see previous pages... Section 13(1A) of This Act provides as regards England and Wales, the term implied by s

Hi, need to submit a 3000 words essay on the topic Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Section 13(1A) of This Act provides as regards England and Wales, the term implied by subsection (1) above is a condition. Under Section 13 of the Act there is an implied condition in a contract of sale, upon the supplier of a service in a contract that the goods will correspond with the description, which will apply to any sale where the purchaser does not see the goods before he buys them &amp. when acting in the course of a business that he will carry out the service with reasonable contractual period.

Even if the purchaser has seen the goods, there may be a sale by description if he has relied upon the description. In this question it need to discuss While 'description' itself is an ordinary English word, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 contains no definition of what it means when it speaks (in Section 13) of a contract for the sale of goods being a sale 'by description'. And then it needs to discuss that a contract is from between parties when the seller was agreeing to sell and the buyer agreeing to buy. Now it need to discuss about condition, sale 'by description', current possession, and misrepresentation.

First, one has to decide what is the meaning of sale by description. In the case of Varley v Whipp1 it has been held that this phrase must apply to all cases where the purchaser has not seen the goods but is relying on the description alone. Therefore, a sale must be by description if it is of future, or unascertained goods. But in addition, the term applies in many cases even where the buyer has seen the goods. Not only the term "sale by description" includes goods of a generic kind, for example, a packet of brand X cigarettes but also specific goods when they are sold as a thing corresponding to description. In the case of Beale v Taylor2 the subject matter of the contract was described as a 1961 Triumph Herald Convertible and the plaintiff saw the car and bought it. In fact, it turned out to be two different cars joined together. It was held that the car did not comply with the description. In Grant v Australian Knitting Mills [1936] the sale of woolen underwear was held to be a sale by description even though the buyer was buying something displayed before him on the counter.

But a sale is not a "sale by description" where the buyer makes it clear that he is buying a particular thing because of its unique qualities, and that no other will do, or where there is absolutely no reliance by the buyer on the description (Harlingdon Ltd v Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd3). In other words it appears that the only case of a sale not being by description occurs where the buyer makes it clear that he is buying a particular thing because of its unique qualities and that no other will do. For this reason, the sale of manufactured item will nearly always be a sale by description (except where it is second hand) because articles made to an identical design are not generally bought as unique goods but as goods corresponding to that design. In the Harlingdon case, the buyer was a professional art dealer who knew the seller had no experience or knowledge of the type of painting being said. There was accordingly no breach of s. 13 when the painting turned out to be a forgery. The buyer had placed no reliance on the seller's description.