Fred is a manufacturer of a waterproofing compound, called "Waterguard". Sam, an exporter, wishes to purchase some "Waterguard" to line some containers in which to export certain liquids. Prior to contract, Sam communicated the intended purpose of the waterproofing compound to Fred and Fred responded by describing the compound as an "A+ Export Quality". Sam was provided a small amount of "Waterguard" to test and it worked fine when applied to containers in Sam's warehouse. Convinced, Sam purchased the "Waterguard" from Fred.

In the course of export by ship, Sam's containers were exposed on the dock to strong sun for a period of some days. This caused the "Waterguard" to melt with the liquid contained in them. As a result, the cargo was ruined. There was plenty of evidence that a number of other waterproofing compounds would not have melted in similar circumstances.

Sam sued Fred in contract for lack of quality under sale of goods legislation and for negligent performance of the contract of supply. Sam alleges that Fred was negligent in supplying "A+ Export Quality" compound to Sam and that the compound did not comply with the description.

Fred defended himself, stating that there had been no breach of the sale of goods legislation relating to quality and misleading conduct. Fred also contended that there had not been negligence on his part. Even if there had been negligence, Sam was guilty of contributory negligence in that a prudent exporter would have tested the compound before lining the container and a prudent exporter would not have left their containers exposed to strong sun for a period of days.

(Aswan Engineering v Lupdine(1987))

Discuss Fred's liability in relation to Seller's warranties under SOGA 1957 in relation to quality, fitness for purpose and sale by sample.