Issue:

Whether Julie has the right to cancel the sale and purchase agreement made between her and Ah
Chong on the sales of the sewing machine.

Law:

Hire-Purchase Act 1967

Implied condition that the goods shall be of merchantable quality. Section 7(2)

Except

where the hirer has examined the goods or sample, as regards defects which the examination ought
to reveal.

if the goods are second hand goods and agreement contains a statement to the effect that-

a. the goods are second hand; and

b. all conditions and warranties as to quality are expressly negative, and the owner proves
that the hirer has acknowledge in writing that the statement was brought to his notice.

Application :

David Jones v. Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110

Henry Kendall &Sons v. William Lillico & Sons Ltd (1969) 2 AC 31

Barlett v. Sidney Marcus

Conclusion :

Julie has no right to cancel the agreement as she acknowledge the goods are
second hand goods and the agreement contains a statement to the effect
Application

By referring to David Jones v. Willis (1934) 52 CLR 110 cases,

the plaintiff has been purchased a pair of shoes from the defendant. Defendant is the retailer
distributor of the shoes but not the manufacturer. However, when the plaintiff wears the shoes to
walk down from the stairs on the third event, the heel came off. This cause the plaintiff fell over and
injured. She are tried to sue for damages from the defendant. The court held that there was a
breach of the conditions where by the shoes are unmerchantable and didnt fit for the purpose as
according to the Section 16(1)(b).

In Henry Kendall & Sons v. William Lillico & Sons Ltd (1969) 2 AC 31 case,

wholesale dealer make an agreement to buy the ground nuts which the description of Brazilian
ground nut extraction through Brazilian ports shipment. Some of the members from the same trade
association are bought the ground nut extraction and the purpose of compounding into the cattle
and poultry food. The extraction contained poison and it was unfit for this purpose. Many pheasants
fed on the extraction are died. The wholesale want to claim the damages due to the breach of
warranty and condition from the defendant. However, the court held that the ground nut extraction
was to be merchantable or satisfactory quality which is commonly has been in feeding animals. This
is because the extraction was sold under the ordinary description and it was of merchantable quality
for the purpose of Sale of Goods Act 1893, although it was contaminated but the question is that
whether the contaminated quality was merchantable quality being determined during the trial date.

However, in Barlett v. Sidney Marcus,

plaintiff took the second-hand car from the defendants salesman for a trial run when he was
planning to buy the car from defendant. The plaintiff was informed by the salesman that the car was
some problem exists in the clutch and the oil pressure. The plaintiff were trading in his car was
offered the car at 575 or 550 if he had to repair the clutch himself. Plaintiff was agreed to buy the
car for 550 and expense was to bear by him. There was a written agreement. After that, the
plaintiff drove it for four weeks and travelled about three hundred miles without any doubt.
However, when the car was sent to a garage for repair and maintenance, plaintiff found out that
defect in clutch was far more serious than either plaintiff or defendants salesman had imagined. The
court found out there was no breach for the implied conditions as to fitness of purpose and
merchantable quality. This is because the plaintiff should expect that a secondhand car is expect to
meet the purpose which is driving along the road in safety even though it is not perfect as a new car.