Ingham v Emes (1955) 2 QB 366, (1955) 2 All ER 740, CA
The plaintiff her hair dyed with Inecto. She had a reaction and her doctor suggested that it was probably Inecto. Some years later, the plaintiff had a new hairdresser, the defendent, who once again suggested using Inecto. The defendent insisted on performing a test and the results were negative as she applied Inecto. The plaintiff had a severe allergic reaction and sued for negligence and breach of warranty of fitness. The Court accepted that the plaintiff had never warned the defendent of her previous experience.
It was held that in a contract for work and material there is an implied term that the materials are reasonably fit for the purpose. However, in order for the implied term to arise, the customer must make known to the contractor expressly or by implication the particular purpose for which the materials are required so as to show that he relies on the contractor’s skill or judgment.
The particular purpose in this case was to dye the hair, not of a normal person, but of a person known to be allergic to Inecto. Yet the plaintiff did not make that particular purposes known to tthe defendant so she cannot recover on the implied term. In other words, the implied term as to fitness is dependent on proper disclosure by the customer of any relevant peculiarities known to her, and in particular of the fact that she knew by experience that Inecto might have a bad effect on her.
This study area has been created by our experts to help students with Administrative Law Essay and Problem Questions. If you require further help with your question, why not order a fully customised model answer on which to base your assignment? Use our online order form to submit your request and you could have a complete model answer written to your specification within 24 hours.
