EGAN V MOTOR SERVICES (BATH) LTD

[2007] EWCA Civ 1002, CA (Civ), Ward, Arden and Smith LJJ, 18 October 2007

Sale of Goods - Implied condition – Satisfactory quality - Whether on the evidence the judge had been entitled to find for the defendant - Sale of Goods Act 1979

In March 2004, Mr Egan took delivery of a brand new Audi TT car from the respondent. The following month, he sought to reject it on the ground that it was unsatisfactory. The respondent refused to accept the rejection and, in due course, the appellant sued for the return of the purchase price and damages. The claim having been dismissed at first instance, he appealed. CA held that the judge’s findings that the car had a tendency to veer and that the steering was of satisfactory quality were not mutually inconsistent. Although it was unfortunate that the judge has not provided any reasons for the rejection of certain evidence, he had been entitled to prefer other evidence. The claimant further argued that a buyer should be entitled to reject the car because, under section 14(2B)(c) of the Sale of Goods Act, goods may be of unsatisfactory quality by reason of minor defects. While that was so, the overall test of whether goods are of satisfactory quality was to be found in section 14(2A). Goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all other relevant circumstances. This was an objective test and a matter of judgment on the individual facts of each case.