Unformatted text preview: in customs and buyer does
not receive the goods.
Buyer argues seller has no right
to sell, (as per our s. 14 of the UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA ROWLAND V. DIVALL 1923
Facts: see chart
Divall --------- Rowland -----
Car Owner B sold to - Car
Owner C, had to give to-->Car
owner A UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA CONT.
The buyer returned the car to
the true owner and sued the
seller for return of the purchase
price. The C.A. held that there
was a total failure of
The buyer had bargained for UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Sale by Description
s. 15 and 17 SGA UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Andrew brothers v. Singer 1934
• • • Facts:
Brothers purchase car from Singer for
purpose of resale.
Claim that the car did not comply with the
terms of the contract.
Accidently driven by agent of Singer
“considerable distance” so when the
Brothers got it, it was not a “new” car UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont.
• • •
• -Brothers accepted the car, did not reject
At trial, found that the car was not ‘new’
and Singer was required under the
description in the contract to deliver a
Court of Appeal agrees it is not a new car
Singer argues any clause assuring UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont.
• • • Law
Wallis case (1910)
Wrong seeds delivered, the exclusion
clause is not valid
The clause did not exclude “conditions”
(e.g. terms) only warranties
Description of goods is a “condition” under
the law. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont.
• • Issue:
The clause here does use the words
“condition” So is this valid?
If so, once car is accepted, the Brothers
cannot reject the car and can only sue for
damages. UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont.
Contract keeps saying “new car”
The Judge feels that allowing clause to
hold up is allowing an express term of the
contract (repeated express term) to be
viciously breached (Jeff’s word not the
Judges). UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA Cont.
• • Result:
If Singers intended this result (outright
breaches allowed under the clause) they...
View Full Document
This document was uploaded on 01/23/2014.
- Fall '14
- The Land