George Wills & Co Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd

The case of George Wills & Co Ltd v Davids Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the sale of canned beetroot. Davids Pty Ltd, the buyer and wholesale grocer, sued George Wills & Co Ltd, the seller, for breach of an implied condition that the goods were of merchantable quality. The beetroot, canned in vinegar, deteriorated in storage approximately fourteen to sixteen months after delivery, leading to some cans swelling and leaking, and ultimately being condemned by health authorities. The seller's defence was a denial of breach, asserting that the deterioration was not due to a defect at the time of sale but rather the inherent nature of beetroot canned in vinegar.

The High Court was required to determine whether the canned beetroot, which had a recognised shorter shelf-life when canned in vinegar compared to other canned foodstuffs, was of merchantable quality at the time of sale. This involved considering the meaning of "merchantable quality" under the Sale of Goods Act, particularly in relation to goods with a known, limited lifespan. The court also had to consider whether the appeal from the District Court to the Supreme Court was competent, given that the appellant's counsel had not specifically requested the trial judge to note points of law, as required by section 144 of the District Courts Act 1912-1953.

The High Court reasoned that the contract was understood by both parties to be for the supply of beetroot canned in vinegar, a product with a known tendency to deteriorate after approximately twelve months. The court held that the goods were not unmerchantable merely because they deteriorated within this expected timeframe, as this was an inherent characteristic of the product as described and understood by the parties. The trial judge's approach of comparing the beetroot's lifespan to that of other canned goods, and considering the expectations of wholesale and retail grocers, was deemed an erroneous test for merchantability. The court also found that the appeal to the Supreme Court was competent, as the material questions had been presented to the trial judge for decision, despite the lack of a formal request for notes.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court and the District Court. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the defendant (George Wills & Co Ltd) in the District Court action, with costs.