Richard Town against Stuart Wilson (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCINV 41 (29 July 2025)

Richard Town against Stuart Wilson (Sheriff Court Civil) [2025] SCINV 41 (29 July 2025)

The claim was dismissed because the implied term as to description under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was not breached; the vehicle corresponded with its description. The claimant could not recover costs incurred after transferring ownership to a company, as he had no legal right or title to do so. There was no evidence of actionable misrepresentation by the respondent.

Citation
[2025] SCINV 41
Parties
Claimant: Richard Town; Respondent: Stuart Wilson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Simple Procedure Civil Action / Judgment After Evidential Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Misrepresentation, Private Sale, Description of Goods
Contract Law Consumer Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Misrepresentation Private Sale Description 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Town

Claimant

Stuart Wilson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Simple Procedure Civil Action / Judgment After Evidential Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the implied term as to description under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was breached in a private sale of a second-hand vehicle
  2. 2 Whether the claimant could recover costs incurred after transferring ownership of the vehicle to a company
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation by the seller

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the implied term as to description under section 13 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 was not breached; the vehicle corresponded with its description. The claimant could not recover costs incurred after transferring ownership to a company, as he had no legal right or title to do so. There was no evidence of actionable misrepresentation by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • No award of expenses due to or by either party