Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
BOOK REVIEW - ACTING IN THE COURSE OF A BUSINESS
Robert A. Pearce*
Introduction
Whether a person acts in the course of a business is an issue which frequently appears in the context of consumer protection legislation. For instance, the implied terms as to quality and fitness for purpose applicable to contracts for the sale or supply of goods apply only to contracts by a supplier who deals “in the course of a business”.1 There is also the implied term that the supplier of a service who acts in the course of a business will supply that service with reasonable care and skill.2 The phrase also appears in the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
In addition, whether a person acts in the course of a business is a key element in establishing whether a person acquiring goods “deals as consumer”. This is important because the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 makes a distinction between the effect of exemption clauses in those cases where a person acquiring goods deals as consumer and in those where he does not.3 A person acquiring goods deals as consumer only if the supplier makes the contract to supply the goods in the course of a business and the person acquiring them does not make the contract in the course of a business nor hold himself out as doing so. In addition, the goods supplied must be of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.4
The issue of whether a person is acting in the course of a business generally concerns the supplier of goods, but the question of whether the acquirer of those goods acts in the course of a business is closely related. It is hard to disagree with the view of the Court of Appeal in R. & B. Customs Brokers Co. Ltd. v. United Dominions Trust Ltd.5 that the phrase “in the course of a business” must be given the same interpretation both in deciding whether the supplier is acting in the course of a business and in deciding whether the person acquiring the goods does so in the course of a business. Decisions on the first issue will therefore be treated as equally relevant to the determination of the second issue, and vice versa.
Like most legal concepts, there will be areas of certainty with a penumbra of
* Financial assistance from the Development Fund of University College, Cork is gratefully acknowledged.
1. Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 14 (sales); Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973, s. 10 (hire-purchase); Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, s. 9 (lease or hire); ibid., s. 4 (other contracts for the supply of goods).
2. Ibid., s. 13.
3. For a consideration of this matter in particular, see Brown, “Business and Consumer Contracts” [1988] J.B.L. 386. Brown articulates and supports many of the arguments made in this article.
4. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, s. 12.
5. [1988] 1 W.L.R. 321.
371