Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor

For the purposes of section 14(2A) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the reasonable person is a reasonable buyer in the buyer’s position and with knowledge of all relevant background facts. Those facts may include a well-known pattern of official non-enforcement and the practical availability of insurance.

Illegality affecting the use of goods does not automatically make them unsatisfactory. The buyer must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a reasonable buyer with that knowledge would regard the goods as unsatisfactory. If the evidence permits either view equally, that burden is not discharged.

The claimants bought a second-hand American motor-home from the first defendant for £61,000. It was 102 inches wide, although regulation 8 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 permitted a maximum width of 100 inches. Its use on United Kingdom roads was therefore unlawful.

They claimed that the defendants had misrepresented the vehicle’s width and that it was not of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The trial judge dismissed the misrepresentation claim. He found that the vehicle was otherwise of unsatisfactory quality because of the risk of prosecution, but held that the buyers’ pre-contract examination excluded the implied term.

The buyers appealed. The seller cross-appealed against the finding of unsatisfactory quality. The central issue was whether the vehicle’s unlawful width, in the circumstances known to a reasonable buyer, rendered it unsatisfactory.

1. Appeal dismissed; respondent’s cross-appeal allowed. Auld LJ gave the reasons, with which Thomas and Jacob LJJ agreed. The trial judge’s finding that the seller had represented only the interior width of the motor-home, and had not made an actionable representation about its legal external width, was open to him. An appellate court could not substitute a different factual conclusion merely because neither party had advanced the precise finding made. A judge is not confined to the parties’ rival factual accounts.

2. The trial judge was entitled to find that the relevant authorities had in practice turned a blind eye to widespread breaches of regulation 8 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, and that this was known within the specialist motor-home trade. Under section 14(2A) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, however, the objective reasonable person is a reasonable buyer attributed with knowledge of the relevant transaction and its background.

3. The judge erred by holding that a reasonable person could either accept or reject the risk of prosecution, yet finding for the buyers. The buyers bore the burden of proving that a reasonable buyer with the relevant knowledge would regard the vehicle as unsatisfactory. Where that issue was evenly balanced, the burden was not discharged. On the evidence, the vehicle’s unlawful width did not establish a breach of the implied term. The finding that the vehicle could be effectively insured was also upheld.

4. It was therefore unnecessary to decide the buyer-inspection defence. Auld LJ nevertheless stated that he would have upheld the trial judge’s conclusion under section 14(2C)(b): the buyers had adequate opportunity to inspect the vehicle, knew the lawful maximum width, and an examination ought to have revealed the excessive width. The proposed amendment to invoke section 14(2C)(a) was unnecessary and was not allowed.

5. Damages also fell away. In any event, the normal date for assessing contractual loss was the date of breach, and the buyers had not adduced evidence establishing that the vehicle then had a reduced or nil value. Naughton v O’Callaghan [1990] 3 All E R 191 was not in point. Costs were postponed to a later date.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — dismissed the buyers’ appeal and allowed the seller’s cross-appeal, setting aside the finding that the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality: [2004] EWCA Civ 403.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Leeds District Registry, Mercantile Court — His Honour Judge McGonigal, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the buyers’ claims for rescission or damages for misrepresentation and breach of the implied term of satisfactory quality.