CT 2.4C IMPLIED TERMS (QUIET POSSESSION)
Section 12(2) of the act provides that there is an implied warranty that the buyer shall have and enjoy quiet possession of the goods.
This means that if after the sale of the goods, the buyer’s possession is disturbed by the lawful act of a third party/the wrongful act of the seller, there is a breach of this condition.
In B.O Udekwu V. Abosi, the plaintiff bought a car from the defendant. Customs officials seized the car from the plaintiff because excise duty had not been paid on the car. The plaintiff then sought to rescind the contract, alleging that the defendant was guilty of an offence under the Custom and Excise management Act 1958 and Section 12. The court held that the interference by the customs officers to the goods purchased by the plaintiff was wrongful and illegal because they had no business with import duties as such there was no lawful interference with possession.
In Mason V Burningham, the plaintiff bought a typewriter from the defendant which had been obtained by theft. He later had to return it to the initial owner. The court held that there was a breach of this section. As it was lawful for the previous owner to seek to recover it.
In Rowland V Divall, the plaintiff bought a car that was previously stolen. He had to return it to the initial owner. It was held that the defendant had no right to sell and there has been interference with possession.
In Microbeads A.G V. Vinhurst Road Markings, the plaintiff purchased some road marking equipment from the defendants. 2 years later, a third party acquired a patent to the machines as such the plaintiffs could not use the equipment the court held that there was a breach of Section 12(2) (quiet possession). In my opinion, the court seemed to have broadened the scope of this section.
Section 12(3) provides that there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be free from any third-party charges or encumbrance, which the buyer did not know of at the time of contracting.
Only those charges which the seller knows of shall implicate him. Where he is ignorant of the charges, he shall be excused-Lloyds and Scottish Finance ltd V. Modern Cars and Caravan (Kingston) ltd.