Holmes JA in Phame v Paizes 1973 (3) 397 (A) at 421 stated the following, regarding the quality of incorporeal things

Holmes  JA in Phame v Paizes 1973 (3) 397 (A) at 421 stated the following, regarding the quality of incorporeal things: 

“The next question is whether the representation as pleaded is incapable of being read as bearing upon the quality of the shares. Now quality is a word with a fairly wide connotation. To preserve the mercantile usefulness of the Aedilitian remedies, I  do not consider that the word should be given a restricted meaning. When one speaks of company shares of good quality, a relevant consideration is the percentage return after deducting expenses from income. If one speaks of buying “9 per cent shares”, I consider that that can be said to relate to their quality”. 

In the light of the above statement, 

(a) discuss the application of the Aedilitian remedies in the law of sale to intangible and tangible things; ((5 marks)) and consider the action/remedy in the following circumstances: 

(b) where the seller is an artifex, manufacturer or seller, or is a dealer professing attributes of skill and expert knowledge in relation to the thing; (4 marks) 

(c) where the seller sold the thing with the price to be paid partly in money and partly in an kind (object), such as a trade in car; (4 marks) 

(d) where the seller as acted fraudulently, or mala fide; (4 marks) 

(e) Where the seller has given an express or implied warranty against the existence of the defect, or has warranted the fitness of the res vendita (the thing sold) for the purpose for which it is bought. (4 marks)