Introduction

The present case deals with the condition and warranty under Section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (SOGA).

Facts

• The appellant in the case is a fully qualified medical professional practicing in Adelaide, South Australia.
• He initiated legal proceedings against the defendants, alleging damages on the basis that he developed dermatitis due to the inadequate condition of underwear he bought from the respondents, John Martin & Co., Ltd.
• The appellant argued that the skin condition resulted from the presence of an irritating chemical, specifically free sulphite, in the cuffs or ankle ends of the purchased underpants.
• He asserted that this presence was a consequence of negligence in the manufacturing process.
• Furthermore, the appellant contended that the respondents, John Martin & Co., Ltd. and manufacturer Australian Knitting Mills violated the relevant implied conditions outlined in the SOGA.

Issue Involved

• Whether there is breach of implied warranty or condition?

Observations

• The court held that retailers were liable for a breach of implied warranty or condition under Section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1895 of South Australia.
  • This section is similar to Section 14 of the English Sale of Goods Act, 1893.
• The court said that damage suffered was attributed to the negligent or improper way in which the manufacturers made the garments.
• The court considered the relationship between the manufacturers, retailers, and the appellant (the person suffering harm).
• It argued that there might not be a direct duty owed by the manufacturer to the appellant, given that the manufacturer sold the garments to the retailer however, appellant received the defective good from that retailer only.

Conclusion

• The Court ruled that the garments, manufactured and offered for general sale, were defective when sold to the appellant by the retailers. This defect caused the disease and harm suffered by the appellant.

Notes

Section 16 of SOGA - Implied conditions as to quality or fitness —

Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any other law for the time being in force, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale, except as follows:

(1) Where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose.

Provided that, in the case of a contract for the sale of a specified article under its patent or other trade name, there is no implied condition as to its fitness for any particular purpose.

(2) Where goods are bought by description from a seller who deals in goods of that description (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not), there is an implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality: Provided that, if the buyer has examined the goods, there shall be no implied condition as regards defects which such examination ought to have revealed.

(3) An implied warranty or condition as to quality or fitness for a particular purpose may be annexed by the usage of trade.

(4) An express warranty or condition does not negative a warranty or condition implied by this Act unless inconsistent therewith.