About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SC INV 41
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Ian Cruickshank

Claimant Richard Town bought a 2002 model Jaguar XJ8 from respondent Stuart Wilson, which he claimed did not meet the advertised description upon which he had relied in purchasing the vehicle. The respondent had previously refused to accept the return of the vehicle and refused to pay towards any of the costs incurred in repairs.

The case was heard by Sheriff Ian Cruickshank at Inverness Sheriff Court, with the claimant representing himself and the respondent accompanied by a lay representative.

Couple of mechanical issues

In early 2023, the respondent advertised the Jaguar for sale on the Car and Classic auction website. The advert described the car as “a fine example of a modern classic” which needed little in the way of maintenance “with just a couple of minor cosmetic and mechanical issues”. The advertisement concluded with a notice stating that the condition of the item was the opinion of the seller and may differ from the buyer’s opinion. At the time, it had a recorded mileage of over 67,000 miles.

The claimant placed a successful bid for the Jaguar and travelled to Inverness to collect it, intending to drive it back down to London. He informed the DVLA that the registered keeper of the vehicle was to be a company of which he was director. However, when driving the car, he found that the steering occasionally tramlined the road surface or caused a slight snatch to the left when braking. Later, rust corrosion was discovered when preparing the car for its next MOT sufficient as to cause a failure.

After discovering other mechanical issues, the claimant spent around £1,900 more than he had anticipated having to spend on the vehicle based on what was referred to in its last MOT advisories. He asked the respondent to cover some of his repair costs on several occasions, but the respondent refused to make any contributions and stated by email of 6 September 2023 that he considered the Jaguar remained totally safe to drive.

The claimant initially sought to found his claim under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and what he believed to be the “Sale of Goods Act 2005”. He accepted that he had erroneously relied on the first statute and further accepted that there was no such Act of 2005. He clarified that he sought to base his claim on the Sale of Goods Act 1979, but no detailed submissions on the legal basis for the claim or any defence were submitted by either party.

Constraints on the meaning

In his decision, Sheriff Cruickshank said of the implied terms of the parties’ contract: “For the purposes of section 13 the word ‘description’ is not defined in the 1979 Act. Definition of that word may be synonymous with ‘kind’. Quite often claims based on the implied term of description are alternatively founded on the implied term of quality or fitness for any particular purpose where the contractual status of the parties allows for that. There is a clear distinction to be drawn between these implied terms.”

He continued: “Accordingly, in Ashington Piggeries v Hill (1972), whereas an animal feed mix containing contaminated herring meal breached the implied term as to quality and fitness, there was no misdescription of the feed mix since the fact that the herring meal was contaminated did not render it erroneous to describe it as herring meal. You may ask what contaminated herring meal has to do with a case involving the purchase of a second-hand Jaguar. Put simply, I conclude that there are constraints on the meaning of ‘description’ in contracts of sale when reliance is placed on that as an implied term.”

Considering the other weaknesses of the claimant’s case, Sheriff Cruickshank said: “Mr Town accepted that he had transferred ownership of the Jaguar to his Company on 9 September 2023. Mr Town’s claim includes costs for repairs or replacement parts incurred after that date. No explanation was provided as to why, following transfer of ownership, Mr Town remained personally liable for costs incurred on the Jaguar. If there was a contractual basis for that as between him and his Company, that is a matter between those separate legal individuals. There is no legal basis which would allow Mr Town to claim these costs from Mr Wilson.”

He concluded: “The ‘Notice to bidders’ section [of the auction site] provides a clear warning to a prospective purchaser. It states that the condition of this item is the opinion of the seller and may differ from the bidder’s opinion and that ‘photos and listing description are for guidance purposes only’. It recommends to bidders that “full inspection is recommended”. This puts a bidder on notice. It reinforces the statutory position created by the 1979 Act that there is no implied term about the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied under a contract of sale.”

Sheriff Cruickshank therefore dismissed the claim with no expenses due to or by either party.