Contract-Implied conditions-Fitness lor a particular purpose

Costs and Fees-Appeal costs-Point 01 decision not in grounds 01 appeal
Damages-Proal-Actual damages must be shown '

Reception-Implied condition-English Sale 01 Goods Act 1893

saie 01 Goods-Implied condition-Fitness [or a particular purpose

When a buyer makes known to' the seller the particular purpose for
which the article is required, and the goods are normal in the course of
business of the seller, there is an implied condition that the article shall be
reasonably fit for the purpose, breach of which entitles the buyer to re-
pudiate; and if the good is not fit because of some fault of the buyer the
burden to prove this is on the seller; but to obtain damages the buyer must
show actual damages.

English Sale of Goods Act lS93, s. 14 (1).

Appeal

The facts of this case as they appear from the judgment of
Halford J. are as follows:

In February, 1924 the appellants agreed to supply to the respon-
dent, for the sum of £E.16, a pump, which, when driven by a 5 h.p.
engine, . was capable of lifting water to a height of 22 or 23 feet. In
June of the same year, pursuant to the agreement, they delivered
to the respondent a Ruston Centrifugal pump which he then fixed

* Court: Bell A/C.J., Owen and Halford n.

and connected with his engine. Nothing that he could do, however,

. would make the pump work, and finally he called upon the appel-
lants to remedy the defect. The appellants after considerable ex-
penditure of time and effort, and after the respondent had carried
out one fruitless suggestion of theirs, concluded that the pump's in-
ability to lift any water at all was due to the way in which the machine
had been fixed. The respondent repudiated it, and after a special
test had been carried out in Khartoum North-a test carried out in
conditions which enabled the pump for the first time to fulfill the
object desired-he claimed the right to reject the pump and sue for
the return of his purchase money and damages. This was in August
of 1925. His claim was heard in the Khartoum District Court
and the Judge awarded him-in addition to the £E.16 purchase
money-£E.10 by way of damages. This decision was affirmed in
the High Court, and the appellants have now appealed against the
decision.

July 5, 1926. Halford J.: After stating the facts, the learned
Judge .went on to say:

Now where a buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to
the seller the particular purpose for which the article is required,
so as to show that the. buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment,
and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the.
seller's business to supply (whether he be the manufacture or not),
there is an implied condition that the article shall be reasonably fit
for the purpose. ¹ Breach of this condition entitles the buyer to
reject the goods and repudiate the contract and the failure of the
pump to lift any water at all in this case was prima [acie evidence
that such a breach had occurred.

The appellants did not dispute the failure, but they said the
failure was entirely due to the default of the respondent in not fixing
the pump to the ground in a proper manner. It was the appellants'
duty to satisfy the court that this was so and the principal point in this
appeal shortly is. this: was there evidence to justify the .District
Judge's finding, which was, in effect, that he was not satisfied that the
pump's failure was due to improper fixing.

The court is of opinion that there was ample evidence to justify
it and that his finding and that of the Judge of the High Court on

1 Editor's Note: These are the words of sect. 14 (1) of the English Sale
of Goods Act, 1893.