Search results
Thornett & Fehr V. Beers & Son [1919] 1 K.B. 486. It must be confessed, however, that the stringent language of the proviso can bear hardly on the seller, especially where he is not present to see how thorough an examination of his goods the buyer conducted. 42 See supra, p. 185. 43 Grant v.
Thornett & Fehr v Beers & son (1919) 1 KB 486 Beers went to T’s warehouse to buy some glue. The glue was stored in barrels and every facility was given to B for its inspection. B did not have any of the barrels opened, but only looked at the outside. He then purchased the glue but later found that the glue was defective.
Jan 14, 2018 · In Thornet and Fehr V Beer and sons, where the buyer had examined the gallons of glue in a hurry without checking the internal contents (even when he was offered the opportunity to do so)… the court held that there has been examination.
In LG Thorne & Co Pty Ltd v Thomas Borthwick & Sons (A/Asia) Ltd, [47] the buyer entered into a contract for neatsfoot oil after having been provided with a sample, which it found satisfactory. When the product arrived it did not correspond with the sample.
In Thornett & Fehr v. Beers & Son, [1919] 1 K.B. 486 the buyers made a cursory inspection of some barrels of glue, without opening any, though they were invited to open them. This ousted the implied warranty of merchantable quality.
Jul 10, 2022 · The parties agreed to sell a quantity of two brands of beef tallow, 1919 make. The manufacturers of the stipulated brands chose not to manufacture any tallow at one of their works and at the other they were prevented from manufacturing the required quantity by a strike.
Case: Thornett & Fehr v Beers & Sons ***outside [buyer had inspected] B went to T’s warehouse to buy some glue. The glue was stored in barrels and every facility was given to B for its inspection.
