Norman v Bennett [1974] 1 WLR 1229 - S 1(1)(b) TDA.
- effectiveness of disclaimer.
1) the "bold precise and compelling" test.
2) no trade description applied because of "understanding" between dealers.
undefined: unpaid
Related case digests
- R v Hammertons Cars Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 1243 - S 1(1)(b) TDA.
- supplying clocked cars. 1) odometer reading is a trade description. 2) effective disclaimers must be “bold precise and compelling” so that false trade description is “meaningless”. 3) “supplies” in s 1(1)(b) TDA comprehends more than an act of delivery. - the issue is whether, when the purchaser takes possession of the goods, he gets them with a false trade description applied to them. 4) burden of proof in a disclaimer case remains on P, but once P had proved that a trade description was false there was a strong inference that it had been applied which could only be displaced by evidence to the contrary. 5) appropriate sentence for supplying - taking all the profit plus a good deal more. - R v Southwood [1987] 1 WLR 1361 CA - S 1(1)(a) TDA.
- disclaimer by falsifier. 1) disclaimer not open as defence to charge under s 1(1)(a). 2) s 24 defence not open to falsifier. 3) disclaimer apt under s 1(1)(b) if purchaser put in same state of knowledge as D. 4) clocking to zero not effective disclaimer - irrelevant that no one likely to be misled.