Microbeads A.G. V Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd

Microbeads A.G. v Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd [1975]

Issue

Whether the plaintiffs which are Microbeads A.G and Alfred Ehrismann A.G. has breached the contract regarding implied condition and implied warranty with Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd. under either subsection (1) or (2) of section 12 of the Sales of Goods Act 1893.

Facts

In this case, an English company, P Ltd. has applied for a patent for a road-marking apparatus in December 1966. The patent was published on November 11, 1970 and the letters patent were granted in February 1972. Vinhurst Road Markings Ltd. which is the defendant has bought three road-marking machines from the plaintiffs which are Microbeads A.G and Alfred Ehrismann A.G. However, the defendant were dissastified with the performance of the machines so they withheld of the full price. The plaintiffs then began an action claiming the balances which about 10,000 dollars from the defendant for the machines supplied. The defendant stated that the machines were not fit for the purpose for which they were sold but then they changed their defence to allege breaches by the sellers of the implied condition as to title in section 12(1) of the Sales of Goods Act 1893 and of the implied warranty “that the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods” in subsection (2) of section 12, in that the Swiss machines infringed the patent specification of P Ltd. Published in November 1970.

Judgement

Lord Denning stated in this case that there are three assumptions which the preliminary issue were directed. Those assumptions are that the letters patent were valid, that the machines sold by the Swiss company to the English buyers were such as to fall within the scope of the claims in the specifications, and that the property in each of the machines was to pass prior to November 1970. Those assumptions was made to see whether there was any breach of contract on the part of the Swiss company based on section 12(1) and 12(2) of the Sales of Goods Act 1893.

Section 12(1) of the Sales of Goods Act 1893 stated that “an implied condition on the part of the seller that in the case of a sale he has a right to sell the goods, and that in the case of an agreement to sell he will have a right to sell the goods at the time when the property is to pass”. At the time of the sale, the Swiss company has the right to sell the goods because they made the machines with their own materials and they can pass the property to their buyers without any problem. Also, at the time of the sale which in January 1970 there was no subsisting patent and no one could sue for infringement. So the buyer can use the goods without any disturbance, which proved that section 12(1) was not breached by the seller.