• The right to terminate a contract for breach of condition is modified in relation to non-consumer contracts for the sale of goods by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, S.4 (1) which inserts a new section, s 15 A into the Sale of Goods Act 1979:
• 15A (1)-
a) The buyer would, apart from this subsection, have the right to reject goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller of a term implied by section 12, 14 or 15
b) The breach is so slight that it would be unreasonable for him to reject them, then, if the buyer does not deal as consumer, the breach is not to be treated as a breach of condition but may be treated as a breach of warranty.
The term innominate first came to existance in the case Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha 
The Hong Kong Fir(claimant) rented their ship to kawasaki (defendants) for 2 years
It was said that there was a term in the contract stating that the ship was ‘every way fitted for ordinary cargo service.’
However, the ship was seen to be really old thus the engine room was also old and required to be fixed.
The plaintiffs also admitted that the ship was not right to be at sea.
The ship was held and repaired therefore the ship was not in use for 20 weeks.
Kawasaki(defendants) had then terminated the contract as the plaintiff had breached the conditions
The plaintiffs then claimed that the defendants could not terminate the contract as they were entitled to take legal actions for damages only.
The claim was successful
It was stated by Lord Diplock that it ‘depends on the nature of the event to which the breach gives rise and do not follow the classification terms of condition and warranty.’
It is necessary to look at the breach at the time and apply the test to see if the ‘innocent’ party was fully deprived of getting any benefit from the contract.
In this case they were still allowed to have the boat for another 20 months so it was still possible for Hong Kong to get their benefit from the contract and the contract should not have been terminated.