Unfair Terms P bought a car from D with a term stating that there were no implied warranties as to quality or condition. The car was defective and the CA allowed P’s claim on the grounds that P was dealing as a consumer and therefore S.6 applied so that D could not contract out of liability for supplying defective goods. CA held that had P not been a consumer, the clause would have been valid. As it was, the clause was invalid and the Sale of Goods Act s.14 could apply i.e. impliedly satisfactory condition. CA held that the contract was only “incidental” to P’s business activity.
Dillon LJ: The purchase was not an “integral part of the business carried on”. A “high degree of regularity” of that type of purchase has to occur before that type of purchase (in this case buying company cars) can be considered part of the business activity.
This is dodgy: businesses don’t buy company cars for personal use or pleasure but for the running of the company/as a perk to incentivise people to apply to work there. It is unrealistic to describe the company as a consumer.