Jewson Ltd. v Boyhan

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, section 14(2) establishes a general standard of intrinsic quality, judged by the reasonable person in light of the goods’ description, price and relevant general circumstances. It does not ordinarily impose fitness for a buyer’s special purpose; that is the function of section 14(3).

Reliance under section 14(3) may be partial. A buyer may rely on the seller’s expertise as to some characteristics but retain responsibility for matters within the buyer’s own expertise. Boilers that worked satisfactorily as boilers were therefore of satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for the purpose for which reliance was established.

Jewson sold 12 Amptec electric boilers to Thomas Kelly, who was converting York House into flats for resale. The boilers worked satisfactorily, but they had no BRE SAP code and produced much lower SAP ratings when recalculated for the flats.

The Deputy High Court Judge held Jewson in breach of implied terms under sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Jewson appealed. The central issues were whether the boilers were of satisfactory quality or fit for the known purpose, and whether Kelly reasonably relied on Jewson’s skill and judgment concerning their effect on SAP ratings.

Disposition. The appeal was allowed unanimously. The court declared that Jewson was not in breach of either term implied by sections 14(2) or 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

1. Section 14(3). The relevant questions were whether the buyer made the particular purpose known, whether the goods were reasonably fit for it, and whether the seller showed that the buyer did not rely on the seller’s skill and judgment or that reliance was unreasonable.
2. Partial reliance. The principle recognised in Christopher Hill Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd [1972] AC 441 applies under the 1979 Act. A buyer may rely on the seller in one respect while relying on its own expertise in another. The seller’s responsibility corresponds to the field of the buyer’s reliance.
3. Kelly had made known that the boilers were to be installed in flats being converted for resale. However, there had been no discussion of the flats’ particular characteristics, SAP ratings, or the comparative merits of heating systems. He therefore did not rely on Jewson’s skill and judgment as to the boilers’ effect on the ratings, and reliance in that respect would in any event have been unreasonable. The boilers were fit for the purpose for which reliance was established: their operation as boilers.
4. Section 14(2). The provision establishes a general standard of quality. Particular purposes peculiar to the buyer generally belong under section 14(3). The boilers were intrinsically satisfactory, worked properly, and were suitable for use in flats. Their possible effect on the marketability of these particular flats did not make them of unsatisfactory quality. Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd v Messer UK Ltd [2002] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 20 was distinguishable on its very different facts.

Lord Justice Sedley agreed, adding obiter guidance that trials should generally be split only where the case manager has good reason to conclude that doing so is more likely than not to save time and expense. Mr Justice Cresswell agreed with both judgments. Permission to appeal was refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Appeal allowed on 28 July 2003. The court declared that Jewson was not in breach of the terms implied by sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division. Mr David Foskett QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, determined preliminary issues in judgments dated 2 August and 2 September 2002 and held that Jewson was in breach of the implied terms.