Business Law

2695 Words 11 Pages
Case study: David Jones Ltd v Willis (1934) 52 CLR pages 110 till 133.

This case has created controversy among the Courts and such justices as Rich, Starke and Dixon. They all have different but similar decisions, relating to The Sales of Goods Act 1923(C¡¦th).

This case deals with the defendant David Jones Ltd versus Willis the plaintiff, on the appeal from the supreme court of New South Wales. The case is related to The Sales of Goods Act 1923(C¡¦th). In the case the plaintiff purchased a pair of shoes from the defendant David Jones, a retail distributor of footwear not manufactured by it. On the third occasion of wearing the shoes the heel came off while the plaintiff was walking down the
…show more content…
As the sale was a consumer sale, the parties cannot exclude or restrict the operation of section 18; correspondence with description; 19 merchantable quality and fitness for purpose and 20 correspondence with sample.

Under The Sales of Goods Act the following warranties and conditions apply to the case:

„X     An implied condition of correspondence with description. (Legislation, N.S.W, section 18)

A sale by description is an implied condition that the goods must correspond with their description. The goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller¡¦s business to supply, whether he is the manufacturer or not. Even where goods are sold by brand name, or where the buyer is buying things on display, there can be a sale by description. The goods are in the course of the sellers business to sell as David Jones has a shoe department, with trained staff to assist their customers in purchasing shoes. Even though they are not the manufacture of the shoes, the legislation still applies. Its is not known if the shoes were of brand name, however David Jones is known to sell shoes of expensive known brand names, and if the sales representative picked the shoes from the display shelve, it would have been classified as a sales by description.

However according to Justice Rich, it is not a sale by description as the term the plaintiff

More about Business Law

Open Document