David Jones Ltd v Willis

In *David Jones Ltd v Willis*, the plaintiff, Mrs Willis, sued the defendant, David Jones Ltd, for damages arising from a broken leg sustained when the heel of a pair of shoes purchased from the defendant detached. Mrs Willis claimed a breach of an implied warranty of fitness under section 19(1) of the *Sale of Goods Act 1923* (NSW). She had informed the saleswoman that she required comfortable walking shoes and had a bunion, and purchased a pair on the saleswoman's recommendation. The shoes were described as being "a very bad job" with improperly fastened heels.

The High Court of Australia was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support a cause of action under either section 19(1) or section 19(2) of the *Sale of Goods Act 1923* (NSW). Specifically, the court considered whether the shoes were bought by description, thereby implying a condition of merchantable quality under section 19(2), and whether the plaintiff had made known a particular purpose for the shoes to the seller, demonstrating reliance on the seller's skill or judgment, thus implying a condition of fitness for that purpose under section 19(1).

The Court held that there was evidence upon which a jury could find a breach of section 19(2), as the shoes could be considered to have been bought by description and were not of merchantable quality due to the defective heels. Regarding section 19(1), the Court found that it was open to a jury to determine that the plaintiff had made known the particular purpose of walking and had relied on the seller's skill or judgment, and that the shoes were not reasonably fit for that purpose. The Court noted that the defect in the shoes was such that they were not of merchantable quality and were unfit for walking.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed that in a retail sale, a buyer's request for goods by description, coupled with selection from those offered, could constitute a sale by description under section 19(2). Furthermore, the Court found that a jury could infer reliance on the seller's skill or judgment under section 19(1) even in a retail context, particularly when a specific need, such as comfort for a foot condition, was communicated.