A hot water bottle was bought by Shreya, who could not be expected to have special skill knowledge with regard to hot water bottles, from a chemist, who sold such articles stating that the bottle will not stand boiling w

Ordinarily, in a contract of sale, there is no implied warranty or condition as to the quality or fitness for any particular purpose of goods supplied. But there is an implied condition that the goods are reasonably fit for the purpose for which they are required if: the buyer expressly or by implication makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, so as to show that he relies on the seller's skill and judgement, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply (whether he is the manufacturer or producer or not). There is no such condition if the goods are bought under a patent or trade name. In the case of Priest v. Last (1903) 2 K.B. 148 , a hot water bottle was bought by the plaintiff, a draper, who could not be expected to have special skill knowledge with regard to hot water bottles, from a chemist, who sold such articles stating that the bottle will not stand boiling water but was intended to hold hot water. While being used by the plaintiff's wife, the bottle bursted and injured her. Held, the seller was responsible for damages as the bottle was not fit for use as a hot water bottle. In view of the above, the seller was responsible for damages as the bottle was not fit for use as a hot water bottle.