Duke v. Jackson [1921] ScotLR 299 (29 January 1921)

Duke v. Jackson [1921] ScotLR 299 (29 January 1921)

The pursuer's averments did not infer that the coal supplied was not reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was supplied; the presence of a foreign substance did not render the coal as a whole unfit. Therefore, the action based on breach of implied warranty under section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 299
Parties
Pursuer: John Duke; Defender: Alexander Jackson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 January 1921
Procedural Posture
Action for Damages / Appeal/reclaiming Motion
Outcome
Action dismissed so far as based on breach of implied warranty under Sale of Goods Act 1893; proof before answer allowed on common law negligence.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Warranty, Fitness for Purpose, Negligence
Contract Tort Sale of Goods Implied Warranty Fitness for Purpose Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Duke

Pursuer

Alexander Jackson

Defender

Procedural Posture

Action for Damages / Appeal/reclaiming Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defender breached an implied warranty under section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 by supplying coal not reasonably fit for household consumption
  2. 2 Whether the pursuer's averments disclose a relevant case of negligence at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer's averments did not infer that the coal supplied was not reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was supplied; the presence of a foreign substance did not render the coal as a whole unfit. Therefore, the action based on breach of implied warranty under section 14(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1893 was irrelevant and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed so far as based on breach of implied warranty under Sale of Goods Act 1893; proof before answer allowed on common law negligence.

Orders

  • Recall the interlocutor; disallow pursuer's proposed issues; find pursuer's averments under section 14(1) of Sale of Goods Act 1893 irrelevant and repel fourth plea-in-law; remit to Lord Ordinary to allow proof before answer on common law negligence.