Priest v Last
Rule established
Where goods have one obvious use, the buyer makes known the particular purpose merely by asking for the article by name, and the implied condition of fitness for purpose applies.
Facts
- The plaintiff went to the defendant, a chemist, and asked for a hot water bottle.
- The chemist supplied one, describing it as an American rubber bottle which would stand hot but not boiling water.
- The plaintiff's wife used the bottle in the ordinary way.
- After a few days' use it burst while in use and she was scalded.
- The plaintiff sued for breach of the implied condition of fitness for purpose.
Issue
- Whether the buyer had made known the particular purpose for which the goods were required, where he simply asked for an article having only one obvious use.
Held
- The court held that the implied condition applied and had been breached. An article such as a hot water bottle has one evident use, so by asking for it the buyer necessarily made known the purpose for which it was required. He relied on the seller's skill or judgement, the chemist being a dealer in such goods. The bottle was not fit for that purpose, since a hot water bottle which bursts in ordinary use is plainly unfit.
Ratio Decidendi
Disclosure of purpose need not be express. Where goods have a single obvious use, the purpose is communicated by the very act of asking for the article, and reliance on the seller's judgement is readily inferred where he is a dealer in such goods.
How to use it in an exam
- The leading authority on implied disclosure of purpose under S.16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act 1930.
- Shows how narrow the residual scope of caveat emptor has become for goods with an evident use.
- Contrast with goods having several possible uses, where the buyer must state the specific purpose to attract the condition.
- Contrast also with the patent or trade name proviso, which excludes the condition where the buyer specifies goods by brand and so relies on his own judgement.
Source
Source: [1903] 2 KB 148; leading authority on implied disclosure of purpose; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.