1) The seller is liable if goods are not of merchantable quality and not saleable under their description, as in the case of contaminated beer being sold in a pub. 2) For the sale of goods, the law implies that goods are fit for their intended purpose, as seen in the case of defective copper sheeting sold to sheath a ship. 3) However, no implied condition exists that goods are fit for an abnormal undisclosed purpose, such as a tweed coat irritating unusually sensitive skin.

1. Gardiner v Gray – Merchantable Quality<br />Facts:<br />Buyer purchase twelve bags of ‘waste silk’.<br />TCH:<br />The goods must be saleable under the denomination mentioned in the contract between them. the purchaser cannot be supposed to buy goods to lay them on a dunghill.<br />John v Bright – Fitness for Purpose<br />Facts:<br />Although there seems to have been in that case sufficient evidence of an express warranty, so that it was unnecessary to consider the general question. It was the case of a purchase of copper, ordered by the plaintiff if the defendant for sheathing his vessel, and supplied by the defendant, with knowledge of the purpose for which it was bought. The defendant was the manufacturer of the copper, which was inspected by the plaintiff at the time of the sale. The copper turned out on trial to be defective for the purpose of sheathing; but no fraud was imputed to the defendant.<br />TCH:<br />Seller was liable on a count adapted to these facts, upon an implied warranty. If a seller sells goods for a particular purpose (sheathing ships), he or she impliedly undertakes that they are fit for that purpose.<br />Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd – “Normal” Purpose<br />Facts:<br />A woman with abnormally sensitive skin developed dermatitis as a result of wearing a tweed coat. She sued for breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose, but failed, because she had not made known to the seller the fact she was assuming the coat would not irritate her skin.<br />TCH:<br />No condition fit for person with abnormally sensitive skin to wear.<br />Baldry v Marshall – Trade name Proviso<br />Facts:<br />The plaintiff asked the defendants, who were motor dealers, to supply a car that would be suitable for touring purposes. The defendants recommended a Bugatti, which the plaintiff bough. The written contract excluded the defendant’s liability for any “guarantee or warranty, statutory or otherwise”. <br />The car turned out to be unsuitable for the plaintiff’s purposes, so he rejected it and sued to recover what he had paid.<br />TCH:<br />The requirement that the car be suitable for touring was a condition. Since the clause did not exclude liability for breach of a condition, the plaintiff was not bound by it.<br />Wren v Holt<br />Facts: <br />A buyer sued a pub owner successfully for selling beer of unmerchantable quality. The beer was found to have been contaminated by arsenic (a poison). It was no defence to the pub owner to argue that the beer came from reputable suppliers and that he had done all that he reasonably could to ensure that the beer was fit for consumption, short of carrying out a chemical test, which may not be reasonable to expect under the circumstances. <br />TCH:<br />The seller is liable.<br />