Stephenson v Cookson

Stephenson v Cookson

The application was refused because there was no sufficient link established between the thickening in the pastern, which was disclosed, and the osteoarthritis subsequently discovered. The judge was entitled to find, based on veterinary evidence, that the horse was not of satisfactory quality and that the exception in Section 14(2C) did not apply. No error of law or real prospect of success was demonstrated.

Parties
Applicant: Jackson Reed Stephenson; Respondent: Cookson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Burden of Proof
Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Fitness for Purpose Burden of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Reed Stephenson

Applicant

Cookson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant/vendor breached Section 14(2)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 by selling a horse not of satisfactory quality
  2. 2 Whether the vendor could rely on the exception in Section 14(2C) by having drawn the buyer's attention to the thickening in the pastern
  3. 3 Whether there was a sufficient link between the disclosed thickening and the subsequently discovered osteoarthritis

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because there was no sufficient link established between the thickening in the pastern, which was disclosed, and the osteoarthritis subsequently discovered. The judge was entitled to find, based on veterinary evidence, that the horse was not of satisfactory quality and that the exception in Section 14(2C) did not apply. No error of law or real prospect of success was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused