I mooted :-) Had to defend Mr. Smart A. Pants who sold Sam a dodgy second hand car. I was junior counsel for Mr. Smart A. Pants and although I was kind of anxious, it was fun.

Mr. Pants, you see, sold Sam a second hand Ruat Coleman car and very soon it began to manifest defects. Not immediately though. There wasn't enough information to know whether Sam had test driven the car or if he'd even looked at the thing. But our side found Thain against Anniesland to be useful in arguing against the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). SoGA requires goods to be 'of satisfactory quality' when tested by the infamous reasonable person. Two particular requirments of the SoGA are that the 'goods' are free from minor defects and that should exhibit durability. Sheriff Principal MacLeod in Thain found that second hand cars are liable to become defective at any time, this explains the significant discount from the 'new' price. A reasonable person would expect defects to appear in old cars. He also found that the expectation of durability diminishes with the age of the vehicle.

I think we did pretty well. Opposing senior counsel was very good and amused me highly. I was stifling laughter and she was too. Used to do that in primary & secondary school - be unable to control little laughter bouts. Getting better at it, but heck some things are just too funny. Wonder if I'd be able not to laugh in Court?

Posted by Paul at December 6, 2003 07:28 PM |
Visitor Feedback