The Lowes had ordered a staircase from WMJL and paid for it, but on delivery they rejected the staircase, arguing that it did not comply with the specifications in the contract, and issued proceedings to recover the price of the staircase. The Lowes then also claimed that, if they had proceeded to install the staircase, it would have been in breach of building regulations, which further justified their rejection of the goods. The High Court had ruled that there had been a breach of contract by WMJL in relation to the lack of compliance with building regulations, but this did not justify rejecting the goods as the staircase could have been modified when installed to avoid such a breach. The claimants appealed the decision of the High Court.
The Court of Appeal ruled that there was a breach of contract and that the Lowes were entitled to reject the staircase. The reason for the Court of Appeal’s ruling was that, under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the staircase had to be fit for purpose and of a satisfactory quality. This section had been implied into the contract for the staircase as the Lowes had relied on the skill and judgement of WMJL as the seller of the goods in question. The High Court had ruled that WMJL should at least have warned the Lowes that the design requested would need the approval of a building control officer to ensure compliance with building regulations, and the Lowes had relied on receiving this advice from WMJL – the Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s interpretation but ruled that it entitled the Lowes to reject the staircase. WMJL knew that the staircase, when provided as specified in the contract, would breach building regulations, and should have warned the Lowes of this, such that the staircase could not therefore be considered reasonably fit for purpose and the claimants were entitled to recover the price paid.
