DISCUSS THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SATISFACTORY
QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR
PURPOSE WITHIN UK
COMMERCIAL LAW.
INTRODUCTION
This essay will discuss the ways in which ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘fitness for
purpose’ relate to each other, analysing the relationship between them with
regards to commercial sales. The structure of this essay will be followed by an
examination as to their intrinsic and extrinsic qualities, how the particular
purpose of the goods is taken into account, and the extent to which reliance
upon the seller’s skill and judgment is reasonable. Also, we will look into the
problems involved between them, drawing up a conclusion including my own
judgment on its relationship.
INTRINSIC FEATURES
One of the differences between ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘fitness for purpose’ is
the way in which they are looked at in terms of the features involved in the
goods concerned. The former is dealt with by Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods
Act 1979, which ‘established a general quality standard’, whereas Section 14(3),
concerning the latter, imposed ‘a particular obligation tailored to the particular
circumstances of the case’1. For instance, Section 14(2A) involves the general
features of the goods, such as its description and price. Section 14(2B) also
looks at further basic qualities of the goods to determine its satisfactory quality,
regarding its appearance and finish, safety and durability. Establishing whether
goods are of satisfactory quality requires consideration of whether the goods
‘meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory’ 2. We can
assume that this test is flexible as its result may vary from case to case,
depending on which circumstances are deemed to be relevant 3. Thus
‘satisfactory quality’ is only concerned with the general purpose of such goods,
narrowing its scope down its intrinsic features, listed down in Section 14(2).
EXTRINSIC FEATURES: THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE
1
Clarke LJ – [Jewson Ltd v Boyhan] (2003) EWCA Civ 103
2
Twigg-Flessner – The relationship between satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose:
CLJ 2004, p22-24
3
Clarke LJ – [Jewson Ltd v Boyhan] (2003) EWCA Civ 103
BETWEEN SATISFACTORY
QUALITY AND FITNESS FOR
PURPOSE WITHIN UK
COMMERCIAL LAW.
INTRODUCTION
This essay will discuss the ways in which ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘fitness for
purpose’ relate to each other, analysing the relationship between them with
regards to commercial sales. The structure of this essay will be followed by an
examination as to their intrinsic and extrinsic qualities, how the particular
purpose of the goods is taken into account, and the extent to which reliance
upon the seller’s skill and judgment is reasonable. Also, we will look into the
problems involved between them, drawing up a conclusion including my own
judgment on its relationship.
INTRINSIC FEATURES
One of the differences between ‘satisfactory quality’ and ‘fitness for purpose’ is
the way in which they are looked at in terms of the features involved in the
goods concerned. The former is dealt with by Section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods
Act 1979, which ‘established a general quality standard’, whereas Section 14(3),
concerning the latter, imposed ‘a particular obligation tailored to the particular
circumstances of the case’1. For instance, Section 14(2A) involves the general
features of the goods, such as its description and price. Section 14(2B) also
looks at further basic qualities of the goods to determine its satisfactory quality,
regarding its appearance and finish, safety and durability. Establishing whether
goods are of satisfactory quality requires consideration of whether the goods
‘meet the standard a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory’ 2. We can
assume that this test is flexible as its result may vary from case to case,
depending on which circumstances are deemed to be relevant 3. Thus
‘satisfactory quality’ is only concerned with the general purpose of such goods,
narrowing its scope down its intrinsic features, listed down in Section 14(2).
EXTRINSIC FEATURES: THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE
1
Clarke LJ – [Jewson Ltd v Boyhan] (2003) EWCA Civ 103
2
Twigg-Flessner – The relationship between satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose:
CLJ 2004, p22-24
3
Clarke LJ – [Jewson Ltd v Boyhan] (2003) EWCA Civ 103
