David Jones Limited v Willis [1934] HCA 47

David Jones Limited v Willis [1934] HCA 47

There was evidence for the jury to find both that the transaction was a sale by description and that the implied condition as to merchantable quality was breached under s 19(2). The evidence also permitted a finding that the buyer made known the particular purpose (walking), so as to show reliance on the seller's skill or judgment, thus engaging s 19(1). The defective condition of the shoe warranted the jury's finding of breach.

Parties
Defendant, Appellant: David Jones Limited; Plaintiff, Respondent: May Elizabeth Willis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Supreme Court of New South Wales, Originally Filed in the District Court) / High Court of Australia Decision on Appeal (special Leave)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Conditions and Warranties, Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Sale by Description, Damages for Breach of Contract
Sale of Goods Contract Law Implied Conditions and Warranties Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose Sale by Description Damages for Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Jones Limited

Defendant, Appellant

May Elizabeth Willis

Plaintiff, Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Supreme Court of New South Wales, Originally Filed in the District Court) / High Court of Australia Decision on Appeal (special Leave)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was evidence fit to be submitted to the jury of an implied condition or warranty under s 19(1) or (2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the sale of the shoes was 'by description' so as to attract s 19(2)
  3. 3 Whether the implied condition of merchantable quality or fitness for purpose was breached

Ratio Decidendi

There was evidence for the jury to find both that the transaction was a sale by description and that the implied condition as to merchantable quality was breached under s 19(2). The evidence also permitted a finding that the buyer made known the particular purpose (walking), so as to show reliance on the seller's skill or judgment, thus engaging s 19(1). The defective condition of the shoe warranted the jury's finding of breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs