As you go through life you will discover that the word of a rapidly increasing number of people is not worth anything, honour and decency are words they know not the meaning of.

This is one of those instances.

This is how the act defines "trader":

(2)“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

I don't see that as requiring the contract to relate to the company's main business.

Good luck trying to make that interpretation of the law stick in a court of law. There’s is no way the court would see a florist offloading an old works van as being bound by the same rules as a dealer selling a vehicle for profit.

The act's section on goods commences with words:

This Chapter applies to a contract for a trader to supply goods to a consumer.

Key definitions define a trader thus:

“Trader” means a person acting for purposes relating to that person’s trade, business, craft or profession, whether acting personally or through another person acting in the trader’s name or on the trader’s behalf.

A florist's trade, business, craft or profession is the supply of flowers, arrangements, wreaths etc.

It doesn't extend to disposing of her old van and anybody troubling the small claims court on such specious grounds wouldn't get past first base.

I agree, B in G. A florist selling their old van is a trade sale (assuming that the van has been used for delivering flowers etc), whereas selling their private car woudn't be, even if the proceeds were credited to the business as an increase in capital.

Where there is scope for a judge's interpretation of the law is in the implied term (in a trade sale) 'satisfactory condition'. The older the goods being sold, the further away from perfect condition that will mean; and the judge's job, as always in common law, is to uphold that which is 'reasonable'.