GARSIDE V BLACK HORSE LTD

[2010] EWHC 190 (QB), Queen's Bench Division, Preston District Registry, Mr Justice King, 12 February 2010

Supply of goods - Hire purchase agreement - Implied term as to satisfactory quality although buyer had examined the goods - Rejection of goods - Repudiation - Affirmation of contract - Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, section 10 subsection 2 and 2C(b)

G, the claimant, had taken delivery of an Aston Martin Vanquish S, which had been supplied by the second defendant (a car dealer) to the first defendant (a finance company) for onward supply to G under a hire purchase contract concluded between G and the finance company. In brief, the hire purchase transaction was structured so that the dealer sold the car to the finance company, and that payment in part was made by G by a lump sum to the dealer. G's case was that because of a distorted rear screen window, the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality in breach of the term implied by subsection 2 of section 10 of the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973; as a result he was entitled to reject the vehicle and treat the agreement as repudiated; which he did in January 2006 or at the latest by October 2006. He sought damages from the first defendant equal to the monies paid up to the date of rejection together with the return of the further sums paid after that date and other remedies including a claim for loss of use and inconvenience. In a first judgment the judge had held the windscreen not to be of satisfactory quality because of the distortion effect. The defendants relied on subsection 2C(b) of the same section (examination of the goods), and asserted that there had been effective rejection. They also said that the right to reject had been lost by reason of the passage of time, of the claimant continuing to drive the car and continuing to make payments. The second defendant counterclaimed for storage charges.