Corfield v Sevenways Garage Limited

Date

29 February 1984

Legislation

Trade Descriptions Act 1968, s.1(1)

Keywords

meaning of business; advertisements; meaning of trade; usual course of business

Counsel

J Hoggett

Solicitors:

County Legal Officer, Greater Manchester Council.

Judge:

Robert Goff LJ, Mann J.

Court:

High Court (Queen’s Bench Division)

Reported:

[1985] RTR 109; 4 Tr L 172

Summary:

The garage was tried in the magistrates court for two offences contrary s1(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 relating to vehicle odometer clocking and a false MOT certificate for the sale of cars "in the course of a trade or business". Both informations were dismissed by the justices.

The justices concluded on an examination of the facts that the garage was in business as a repairer of motor vehicles, with authority to carry out MOT tests, and petrol seller. They noted that generally it sold motor vehicles only when disposing of the vehicles of its directors. There were no more than three cars sold by the garage in the previous four years. The justices therefore concluded that it was no part of the usual business of the respondent to sell cars and consequently that they could not find beyond reasonable doubt that the supply of the clocked vehicles had been in the course of business or trade.

The appeal court noted the following:

• there is no requirement in the Trade Descriptions Act for the offence to be in the 'usual' course of the defendant's business;
• the word "business", standing by itself, is a word of great amplitude, particularly when it follows (as it does here) the word "trade"; thus
• the authorities show that the word "business" has a very wide meaning.
• almost any form of activity, apart from one pursued for pleasure or as a hobby, can be described as "business"; and
• the justices misdirected themselves to consider only the 'usual' scope of the defendant’s business.

Decision

In particular the appeal court was persuaded by the fact that this was a sale at a profit and that the vehicle was displayed for sale on the company’s forecourt. The fact that the sales were rare did not stop them being in the course of the defendant's business.