Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Consumer protection in sale of goods agreements: An ancient right in modern guise?

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. A much better argument for the value of the lessons of history appears in A.I. Ogus, “Regulatory Law: Some Lessons from the Past”, 12/1Legal Studies, (1992), 1–19. See also D. Sugarman, “Legal Theory, the Common Law Mind and the Making of the Textbook Tradition”, inLegal Theory and Common Law, ed. W. Twining, Blackwell, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M.J. Horwitz, “The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law”, 87/5Harvard Law Review, (1974) 917–956.

    Google Scholar 

  3. S.14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

  4. S.4 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

  5. P.S. Atiyah,The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Clarendon Press, 1979, 61.

  6. Ch. Petit-Dutaillis,The Feudal Monarchy in France and England, Routledge and Keegan Paul Ltd, 1966, 56–96.

  7. W.A. Hamilton, “The Ancient Maxim of Caveat Emptor”, 22Yale Law Journal (1931), 1137.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Supra n.5 at 61.

  9. R.H. Tawney,Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Penguin, 1948. Tawney describes how a thirteenth century manual of St. Raymond denounced as usury and therefore sinful the following: the raising of prices of a monopolist, the beating down of prices of a keen bargainer, the rack-renting of land by a landlord, the sub-letting of a tenant at a higher rent than he himself paid, the cutting of wages, the insistence on unreasonably good security for a loan, and the excessive profits of a middleman. See also J.W. Baldwin, “The Medieval Theories of the Just Price”, 49Transactions of the American Philosophical Society (1959), 421–27.

  10. Aquinas,Summa Theoligica IIa IIae, Qu. 98. For a full discussion of the theological arguments and their relevance to the development of the common law see A.W.B. Simpson,A History of the Common Law of Contract, Clarendon Press 1987, 510–518.

  11. Although during this period there were disputes between the Crown and the Church over jurisdiction, the matter was eventually settled to allow the Church authority over all questions involving the formation and annulment of marriage, probate jurisdiction, defamation, perjury and church rates. See R.H. Helmholz,Roman Canon Law in Reformation England, Cambridge University Press, 1990.

  12. The Sheriff was required to visit each Hundred court within his jurisdiction twice a year and examine the tithings. Those who failed to appear were amerced (fined). See O.F. Robinson. T.D. Fergus, W.M. Gordon,European Legal History, Butterworths, 1994, 128–133; T.F.T. Plucknett,Early English Legal Literature Literature, Cambridge University Press, 1958, 27–38.

  13. J.Z. Titow,English Rural Society 1200–1350, Allen and Unwin, 1972, 189–195. The author includes a Gloucester monastic Cartulary dating from around 1300 which lists the articles of enquiry for the Frankpledge. This comprehensive list includes enquiries: About Christian usurers, About bakers selling bread contrary to the assize, About brewers selling bread contrary to the assize, About false gallons or pottles (liquid measure approx 2 quarts) About false weys or pounds ...

  14. N.J. Hone,The Manor and Manorial Records, Methuen, 1906, 122–23. The name of the court was said to derive its name from the dusty shoes (pieds poudres) of the litigants.

  15. C.W. Gilliam, “Product Liability in a Nutshell”, 37Oregan Law Review (1958), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Supra n.5 at 64;supra n.10 at 158.

  17. Supra n.11 at 510.

  18. S.J. Bailey, “The Assignment of Debts in England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century”, 27Law Quarterly Review (1931), 516–535.

    Google Scholar 

  19. “Select Pleas, Starrs and Other Records from the Rolls of the Exchequer of the Jews, A.D. 1220–1284”, 15Selden Society, Bernard Quaritch, 1902.

  20. H.D. Hazeltine, “The Exchequer of the Jews”, 18Law Quarterly Review (1902), 305–309.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Supra n.13 at 90–105.

  22. T.F.T. Plucknett,Early English Legal Literature, Cambridge University Press, 1958, 19–60.

  23. A. Harding,A Social History of English Law, Penguin, 1966, 195–215.

  24. J.H. Baker,An Introduction to English Legal History, Butterworths, 3rd. ed., 1990, 237–254.

  25. The Statute of Usury 1545 “permitted” 10% interest.The Statute Against Usury repealed the 1545 Act, which had been misunderstood, and was not intended to permit usury.The Statute of Usury 1571 voided all contracts over 10% interest and stated that contracts for less than 10% interest were valid, but that the interest was forfeitable to the Crown.

  26. D. Ibbotson, “From Property to Contract: The Transformation of Sale in the Middle Ages”, 13/1Journal of Legal History (1992), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  27. D. Ibbotson, “Sale of Goods in the Fourteenth Century”, 107Law Quarterly Review (1991), 480–500.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Anon (1321) B.& M. 285.

  29. Supra n.25 at 360–426.

  30. Aylesbury v.Wattes (1382) B.& M. 359. The case concerned the sale of a blind horse warranted sound in sight and limb.

  31. Rempson v.Morley (1383) Y.B. Trin. 7 Ric.II 30.

  32. A. Fitzherbert,Natura Brevium (1527) B.& M. 344.

  33. Shipton v.Dogge (1442) B.& M. 391.

  34. Supra n.11 at 103.

  35. Pinel's Case (1602) 5 Co rep 117a.

  36. Supra n.5 at 63.

  37. Supra n.8 at 1172.

  38. Supra n.25 at 386.

  39. S.M. Waddams, “Strict Liability, Warranties, and the Sale of Goods”, 19Toronto Law Journal (1969), 157.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s.14.

  41. Chandler v.Lopus (no.1), (1604) B.& M. 518.

  42. Bukton v.Tounsende, (1348) B.& M. 358.

  43. Heilbut, Symonds & Co. v.Buckleton, (1913) AC 30.

  44. Supra n.42.

  45. Supra n.8 at 1167.

  46. See S.F.C. Milsom, “Sale of Goods in the Fifteenth Century”, 77Law Quarterly Review (1961), 261–284, for a full discussion of many of those technical issues.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Harris v.Bowden, (1587) 78 Eng. Rep. 348.

  48. Tracey v.Veal, (1610) 79 Eng. Rep. 14.

  49. Moore v.Hussey, (1601) 80 Eng. Rep. 243.

  50. Supra n.10 at 29.

  51. Supra n.5 at 41.

  52. C. Hill,Reformation to Industrial Revolution, Penguin, 1975.

  53. Supra n.24 at 284.

  54. T.F.T. Plucknett,A Concise History of the Common Law, Butterworths, 1956, 647–670.

  55. Supra, n.5 at 79.

  56. M.E. Rose,The English Poor Law 1780–1930, David and Charles, 1971, 58–105.

  57. P. Slack,Poverty and Policy in Tudor and Stuart England, Longman, 1993, 138–148.

  58. Cox v.Prentice, (1815) 105 Eng. Rep. 641.

  59. Supra n.5 at 324.

  60. Grant Gilmore,Death of Contract, Ohio State University Press, 1974.

  61. Supra n.61 at 120.

  62. See the works of Charles Dickens, including the portrait of Lawyer Tulkinghorn and the practices of Chancery inBleak House, and assorted articles inHousehold Words, etc.

  63. Supra n.25 at 79.

  64. Supra n.25 at 131.

  65. P.J. Cooke and D.W. Oughton,The Common Law of Obligations, Butterworths, 1989, 29.

  66. SeeGardiner v.Gray (1815) 4 Camp 1414,Jones v.Just (1860) L.R. 3 Q.B. 197,Brown v.Edgington (1841) 2 Man G. 279,Randall v.Nessie (1871) 2 Q.B.D. 102.

  67. ExceptChandler v.Lopus, supra n.42,Heilbut, Symonds & Co. v.Buckleton, supra n.44.

  68. Parkinson v.Lee (1802) 2 East 314.

  69. Supra n.69.

  70. Bagleholet v.Walters (1802) 2 East 314.

  71. Jones v.Bright (1829) 5 Bing 532.

  72. Chanter v.Hopkins (1834) 4 L & U 399.

  73. Brown v.Edgington (1841) 2 Man & G 278.

  74. Bluett v.Osborne (1832) 1 Stark NB 384.

  75. Syers v.Jones (1848) 2 Ex 109.

  76. Bigge v.Parkinson (1862) 7 H & N 956.

  77. Jones v.Just (1860) 3 L.R. 3 Q.B. 197.

  78. Smith v.Hughes (1871) L.R. 597.

  79. R.B. Ferguson, “Commercial Expectation and the Guarantees of the Law, Sale Transactions in the mid Nineteenth Century”, inLaw, Economy and Society 1750–1914, ed. D. Sugarman and G.R. Rubin, Professional Books, 1984, 192–209.

  80. Stevewright v.Archibald (1851) 17 Q.B. 103.

  81. Supra n.5 at 205 and 421.

  82. Supra n.5 at 61.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law Social Work and Social Policy, Liverpool John Moores University, UK

    Lorie Charlesworth (Senior Lecturer in Common Law)

Authors
  1. Lorie Charlesworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Charlesworth, L. Consumer protection in sale of goods agreements: An ancient right in modern guise?. Liverpool Law Rev 16, 167–186 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079812

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079812

Keywords

Search

Navigation