Search results
Feb 8, 2023 · Priest v Last is an English case law that throws light on the responsibility of a seller to ensure that the goods supplied are fit for use.
Sep 24, 2021 · The same principle applies in Priest v Last (1903). This case is demonstrates the principle if the buyer told the seller the particular purpose which he/she is purchasing the goods, then it is an implied condition that the goods are reasonable to for the purpose.
1. The particular purpose for which an article purchased is required may, under the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, s. 14, be made known to the seller by the recognised description by which the article is purchased.
In these kind of cases, an obvious purpose is inferred. In Priest v Last [1903] 2 KB 148 3 it was held that the condition of ‘disclosure of purpose’ has been satisfied in a sale of “hot water bottle” despite the buyer having not expressly indicating his purpose for the use of hot water bottle to the seller. This is because it was ...
In Priest v Last (1903)2K.B.148,P asked for a hot water bottle to S ,retail chemist ,he was supplied one which burst after few days use and injured P’s wife. The court held that S was liable for the breach of implied condition because P had made known to the Chemist the purpose for which he buys the goods.
Jan 14, 2018 · In Priest V. Last the court held that a hot water bottle is fit for one purpose, keeping hot water. Also in Chaproniere V Mason , the court held that where a person buys food it presumed that it shall be reasonably fit for eating.
PRIEST V LAST (1903) - DKB3 JUNE 2019. The plaintiff had purchased a hot water bottle from the defendant. Some days after that, the water bottle while being used by the buyer's wife bursts...
