Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor

Bramhill & Anor v Edwards & Anor

The appellants failed to prove actionable misrepresentation. The vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality within the meaning of section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would not regard the minor illegality as rendering the vehicle unsatisfactory. Even if there was a breach, the buyers had the opportunity to inspect and should have discovered the width, thus section 14(2C)(b) applied. No recoverable loss was established.

Parties
Appellant: Barry Bramhill; Appellant: Maureen Bramhill; Respondent: Mark Edwards; Respondent: Jane Edwards
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Damages, Inspection of Goods
Contract Law Consumer Protection Sale of Goods Misrepresentation Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Damages Inspection of Goods

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

Appellant

Maureen Bramhill

Appellant

Mark Edwards

Respondent

Jane Edwards

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents misrepresented the width of the vehicle prior to sale
  2. 2 Whether the vehicle was of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  3. 3 Whether section 14(2C)(b) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 applied to exclude liability

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to prove actionable misrepresentation. The vehicle was not of unsatisfactory quality within the meaning of section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would not regard the minor illegality as rendering the vehicle unsatisfactory. Even if there was a breach, the buyers had the opportunity to inspect and should have discovered the width, thus section 14(2C)(b) applied. No recoverable loss was established.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appellants' appeal dismissed
  • Respondents' cross-appeal allowed