Rosengrens Tann Ltd v Ayres [2001] EWCA Civ 997 (22 June 2001)

Rosengrens Tann Ltd v Ayres [2001] EWCA Civ 997 (22 June 2001)

The trial judge erred in treating the 1978 drawing as part of the contractual specification and as the basis for finding the safes substandard; the drawing was not incorporated into the contract, and the judge's reasoning was inadequate. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for retrial to properly determine...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 997
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rosengrens Tann Ltd; Defendant/respondent: R J Ayres trading as Ace Safe Company
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment, Remitted for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed, case remitted for retrial
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Description of Goods, Satisfactory Quality
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Misrepresentation Implied Terms Breach of Contract Description of Goods Satisfactory Quality

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosengrens Tann Ltd

Claimant/appellant

R J Ayres trading as Ace Safe Company

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment, Remitted for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the safes sold conformed to the contractual description under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the safes were of satisfactory quality under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in relying on a 1978 drawing as the contractual specification

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in treating the 1978 drawing as part of the contractual specification and as the basis for finding the safes substandard; the drawing was not incorporated into the contract, and the judge's reasoning was inadequate. The appeal was allowed and the case remitted for retrial to properly determine if the safes were of satisfactory quality or conformed to the contractual description without reliance on the 1978 drawing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, case remitted for retrial

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Case remitted for retrial