Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 403 (02 April 2004)

Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 403 (02 April 2004)

There was no actionable misrepresentation as the only representation found was as to interior width, not exterior width. The vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as a reasonable person with knowledge of the background would not regard the minor illegality as rendering it unsatisfactory, especially given the authorities' tolerance and insurability. Even if there had been a breach, the appellants' examination ought to have revealed the width, precluding reliance on the implied term. No damages were provable.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 403
Parties
Appellants: Barry Bramhill and Maureen Bramhill; Respondents: Mark Edwards and Jane Edwards (sued in their own right and as partners or proprietors of Destination RV)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Sale of Goods, Inspection of Goods, Damages, Illegality, Insurability
Contract Law Consumer Law Commercial Law Misrepresentation Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Sale of Goods Inspection of Goods +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Bramhill and Maureen Bramhill

Appellants

Mark Edwards and Jane Edwards (sued in their own right and as partners or proprietors of Destination RV)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (mercantile Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents misrepresented the width of the vehicle to the appellants
  2. 2 Whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were disentitled from relying on the implied term due to their examination of the vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

There was no actionable misrepresentation as the only representation found was as to interior width, not exterior width. The vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as a reasonable person with knowledge of the background would not regard the minor illegality as rendering it unsatisfactory, especially given the authorities' tolerance and insurability. Even if there had been a breach, the appellants' examination ought to have revealed the width, precluding reliance on the implied term. No damages were provable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Respondents' cross-appeal allowed