Case Study of Stevenson And Another V Rogers 1999 - Brief Discussion

Question: Give a brief discussion synopsis of the material facts of the case? Answer: Material facts of the case: In this case, the defendant was a fisherman. He had sold his fishing boat to the claimant. Under these circumstances, an action was initiated by the claimant against the defendant that was based on the breach of section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act as it was claimed that the board was not of satisfactory quality. It needs to be noted in this regard that section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act is only applicable to the goods that have been sold by one party to the other in course of business. In this regard, it was claimed by the defendant that the boat was not sold in the course of business of the defendant. The business of the defendant was catching fish and selling them and therefore, buying and selling fishing boats was not the business of the defendant. However, it was held by the court that the sale of boat can be considered to have taken place in the course of business and as a result, it was the responsibility of the defendant to make sure that the boat was of satisfactory quality. The defendant has been a fisherman for nearly 20 years at the time of the sale of the boat. He had been carrying on this business and had purchased his first fishing vessel, Dolly Mop several years ago. Later on, in 1983 he purchased the Jelle. After operating these two votes, he sold Dolly Mop in 1986 and in Apple 1988 he also sold the Jelle because he wanted to have a new board that was built according to his requirements. However very soon he changed his mind and purchased Marilyn Jane in order to continue with his fishing business. The ratio decidendi and obiter dicta: In this case, in order to decide the matter, the Court of Appeal had to decide the meaning of the term in the course of business as mentioned in section 14 of the sale of goods act, 1979. While in an earlier decision, given in case titled RB Customs Brokers v UDT (1988), the court had decided the meaning of this phrase as it was present in section 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977. However in this case, a different interpretation was given to this term by the Court of Appeal and the application of the decision given in RB Custom Brokers case was restricted to the meaning of the term in the course of business as present in the Unfair Contract Terms Act. An analysis of the reasoning of the main judgement: The appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and it was stated that the legislative history of section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act reveals that attended the change can be seen in the intention of the Parliament. While the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 had not made any distinction between the commercial sales and private sales in section 14 and at the same time, the Act of 1893 can also be described as a whole, as a body of rules that was mainly applicable in case of all the contracts of same. On the other hand, the 1979 Act can be described as a consolidation of the law that has been altered by the provisions of Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, 1973 and also by the provisions of Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977. The court stated that both of these registrations are mainly concerned with providing protection to the consumers and have transformed the code of 1893 Act into a legislation that contains several rules that are dependent o n a number of factors, including the capacity in which the seller deals with the other party and also the nature of the goods that are involved in the sale. In this way, the court stated that section 3 of the 1973 Act that has been reelected by section 14(2) of the 1979 Act intended to broaden the protection that was offered to the purchasers and as a result of the removal of the requirement that the seller should be in the type of goods that are being sold, the court stated that no justification was present that the implied and indefinable qualification should be reintroduced on the apparently wide scope and purpose of section 14(2). As a result, the Court of Appeal arrived at the conclusion that the sale of Jelle" can be considered to be a sale that has taken place in the course of business and as a result, it was subject to the implied term regarding merchantable quality. An analysis of the importance of Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3 to the decision: The court stated in this regard that as a result of the varied approach that has been adopted by the courts in different areas of law regarding the question that what can be considered to have been done in the course of trade or business, there may be an ambiguity or a doubt if the words used in section 14(2) need to be taken at face value or if the words used in section 14 should be interpreted so that they can connote at least some degree of regularity and in this way, exclude the sporadic sales that are only incidental to the business of the seller. Therefore the approach provided in Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42 was described by the court as appropriate. An analysis of the effect of the decision in Stevenson and Another v Rogers (1999) in relation to claims for breach of S14 Sale of Goods Act 1979: Section 14 of the sale of goods act provides that terms regarding quality and title are implied and are only relevant where the seller is acting in the course of business. However, the phrase in the course of business has received significant judicial consideration and as a result of the decision given in Stevenson v Rogers, a white definition has been given to this requirement. As a result, it now encompasses all the activities that are ancillary or even loosely associated with the business of a company. As a result, for example when a bank is selling a company car, it will be considered as acting in the course of business. References/Case Law Stevenson and another v Rogers - [1999] 1 All ER 613 RB Customs Brokers v UDT (1988) 1 WLR 321 Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42 Sale of Goods Act, 1979 Unfair Contract Terms Act, 1977