[2019] KEHC 409 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 409 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent made known to the appellant the purpose for which the printer was required and relied on the appellant's skill and representations. The evidence demonstrated that the printer was plagued with persistent defects from installation, resulting in poor quality output and operational failures, which were not attributable to the respondent's misuse or lack of maintenance. The court held that the printer was not of merchantable quality and not fit for the intended purpose, thus breaching the implied condition under section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. The respondent was therefore entitled to repudiate the contract and claim a refund of the purchase price. The...

Citation
[2019] KEHC 409 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Vivid Printing Equipment Solutions Limited; Respondent: Monicah Ng'ong'oo t/a Identity Partner
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
20 December 2019
Case Number
Civil Appeal 639 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Merchantable Quality, Implied Conditions, Fitness for Purpose, Contract Repudiation, Damages for Breach
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Sale of Goods Merchantable Quality Implied Conditions Fitness for Purpose Contract Repudiation Damages for Breach

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivid Printing Equipment Solutions Limited

Appellant

Monicah Ng'ong'oo t/a Identity Partner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the printer supplied by the appellant was of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose for which it was purchased.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to repudiate the contract and seek a refund of the purchase price due to breach of implied condition.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its application of the Sale of Goods Act regarding passing of property, risk, and remedies for breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent made known to the appellant the purpose for which the printer was required and relied on the appellant's skill and representations. The evidence demonstrated that the printer was plagued with persistent defects from installation, resulting in poor quality output and operational failures, which were not attributable to the respondent's misuse or lack of maintenance. The court held that the printer was not of merchantable quality and not fit for the intended purpose, thus breaching the implied condition under section 16 of the Sale of Goods Act. The respondent was therefore entitled to repudiate the contract and claim a refund of the purchase price. The...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • The respondent is entitled to a refund of Kshs. 1,207,444 together with interest at court rates from the date of filing suit.