McCallum v Mason [1955] ScotCS CSIH_8 (19 October 1955)

McCallum v Mason [1955] ScotCS CSIH_8 (19 October 1955)

Section 14(1) applies only to the 1952 tomato crop, as the particular purpose disclosed was limited to that crop and year; section 14(2) does not apply because the goods supplied were different in kind from those ordered, thus not a case of merchantable quality but of non-correspondence with description.

Citation
[1955] ScotCS CSIH_8
Parties
Pursuer: M'Callum; Defender: Mason
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
19 October 1955
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
Proof before answer allowed only in respect of the 1952 tomato crop under section 14(1); averments under section 14(2) dismissed as irrelevant.
Legal Topics
Implied Conditions, Merchantable Quality, Fitness for Purpose, Sale by Description
Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Conditions Merchantable Quality Fitness for Purpose Sale by Description

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M'Callum

Pursuer

Mason

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case for breach of implied conditions under sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893
  2. 2 Whether section 14(1) applies to crops other than the 1952 tomato crop
  3. 3 Whether section 14(2) applies when goods supplied do not correspond with description

Ratio Decidendi

Section 14(1) applies only to the 1952 tomato crop, as the particular purpose disclosed was limited to that crop and year; section 14(2) does not apply because the goods supplied were different in kind from those ordered, thus not a case of merchantable quality but of non-correspondence with description.

Court Disposition

Proof before answer allowed only in respect of the 1952 tomato crop under section 14(1); averments under section 14(2) dismissed as irrelevant.

Orders

  • Proof before answer restricted to 1952 tomato crop under section 14(1)
  • No proof allowed under section 14(2)