As regards the application of the Sales of Goods Act, it is relevant to mention that provisions of Section 13 and 15 apply to all sales, irrespective of the seller's status but the quality and fitness provisions contained in14 (2) and 14(3) are attracted only where the seller sells "in the course of a business". Therefore, the status of the buyer does not matter. If these provisions are applied along with the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (UCTA) whereby the seller cannot exclude or restrict his liability under the terms as against a buyer "dealing as consumer", which requires that (a) the buyer not make the contract in the course of a business, or hold himself out as so doing, (b) the seller make the contract in the course of a business and (c) the goods be of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption.Therefore, it would be seen from the above that under the provisions of the both the Acts, the phrase "in the course of a business " becomes the major determining factor. The term has been subject to interpretation in two cases.
In R & B Customs Brokers Co Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd, (1) the Court of Appeal held that a person bought goods 'in the course of a business' for the purposes of UCTA where either (i) the purchase was an integral part of the business, or (ii) although the purchase was incidental to the business, there was a sufficient degree of regularity of similar purchases. However, in Stevenson v Rogers, (2) the Court of Appeal business is "in the course of a business. The cases are in line with a series of cases decided on the same lines. (3)
What should be the standard of quality of goods is provided under the Sales of Goods Act. Until 1995, the term "merchantable" quality was used in sale of goods legislation. It became obsolete due to socio-economic changes and the test was replaced with satisfactory quality. Section 14 lays down that the goods are of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other relevant circumstances.
1.  1 WLR 321
2.  1 All ER 61
3. See also; Wilson v Rickett Cockerell & Co Ltd  1 QB 598; Vacwell Engineering v BDH Chemicals  3 All ER 1681;Aswan Engineering Ltd v Lupdine Ltd (Thurgar Bolle Ltd third party) (1987) 1 All ER 135
The test of "satisfactory quality" is that of a reasonable person and it is further elaborated in Section 14 as including their state and condition and the following (among others) are inappropriate cases aspects of the quality of goods-
(a) fitness for all the purposes for which goods of the kind in question are commonly supplied,
(b) appearance and finish,
(c) freedom from minor defects,
(d) safety, and
The potential defendants in a products