Part I (section 1) states that the act applies to contracts of sale of goods made on or after 1 January 1894.

Necessaries are goods suitable to the persons' condition of life and actual requirements at the time of contracting.

[7] This amendment moderates the traditionally strict approach of English Law to contractual breach in a commercial context.

[8] The right to reject may be modified or excluded by agreement between the buyer and seller, so long as the contractual wording makes clear that this is the case.

The case of Aston FFI (Suisse) SA v Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA, using GAFTA terms and conditions, is an example of a case where the High Court has found that such a "stipulation in clear terms" was lacking.

Harlingdon v Christopher Hull[10] held that this implied term may only be breached if the buyer relied upon the description.

Section 14 states that terms are implicitly about quality and title and are only relevant where the seller is acting in the course of a business.

Under section 15, when goods are bought by bulk and the buyer has tested or examined a small number of those goods, the seller is obliged to make sure that every item in the bulk corresponds with the quality of the sample tested or examined.

However, it is changed today and what applies is The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.

Sections 51 to 53 (and 53A in Scotland) relate to damages due to a buyer for non-delivery of goods, where the seller "wrongfully neglects or refuses to deliver the goods to the buyer", although consumers' rights in this regard are now covered by the Consumer Rights Act.

Damages are generally to be estimated according to the "loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the seller’s breach of contract", but where there is "an available market", damages should be calculated prima facie as the difference between the agreed contract price and the "market or current price" facing the buyer needing to secure an alternative supply.

The ruling calculated damages based on the cost to purchase "the nearest equivalent" car.

Such an order would deny the seller the option to "retain the goods on payment of damages".