BSS Group Plc v Makers Ltd - Essay Example

Case Analysis Number Essay Question: BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd Introduction BSS Group Plc v Makers(UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809 is a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal in which the judges held that in case a buyer purchases commodities and informs the seller about what he or she intends to do with the item(s), then they are protected from any liabilities by law1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants appeal, maintaining that the lower court was right in establishing that the defendant had violated the implied term of contract law2. The case was basically interpreted in line with the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 19823. Facts about the case In July 2007, Makers (UK) Ltd (Makers) placed an order for the delivery of Uponor and compression adapters from BSS Group Plc (BSS), which would be used for plumbing. One month later, Makers tendered an additional request for more goods from the supplier. BSS continued with quotation for and supply of the additional merchandise including their internally made brand valve instead of a specified Uponor valve. The buyer then closed one of its Uponor tubes with an Uponor brand adaptor and a BSS valve. The buyer later noticed that the Uponor adaptor was incompatible with the BSS valve, a development that severely affected the plumbing work as part of refurbishment of a public residence in Cambridge4. The incompatible adaptor and valve were fitted anyway, but within a few hours of operation, the valve collapsed under pressure, causing a devastating flood to the lower floors of the building. The issue The issue that was brought before the judges for determination was whether the supplier had violated the implied term in the transaction relative to the items’ fitness for purpose as provided for in section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The case Citing section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979, the buyer argued that the BSS valves did not meet the required threshold of fitness for purpose because they were not compatible for the function that they were required5. The claimant contended that it was incumbent upon BSS to know the function of the items6. The Judgment In deliberating BSS’ case, the Appellate Court held that the defendant was deemed to have violated section 14 (3) of the legislation because he disregarded the information which the buyer had made clear to him. Legally parties to a contract must act on either express or implicit information about an item’s condition of fitness for sale. A seller who proceeds to sell an item is deemed to have considered the item’s fit for use for a particular purpose. The judges ruled that it was incumbent upon the seller to provide proof that the purchaser disregarded the seller’s conditions for use or his actions were arbitrary, judging by the prevailing conditions7. Based on the facts, the judges ruled that the defendant was conscious of the incompatible items sold away to Makers8, but he refused to act in a fair manner9. The incompatibility of the supplied Uponor adaptors and BSS valves was proof enough that they did not meet the required thresholds of an item which was fit for purpose. The Court established that when Makers was faced with the situation, it acted within the knowledge of BSS and their advice on the use of the items10. In light of these arguments, BSS was found to have violated the implied term of contract as enshrined in section 14(3) of the law. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 Section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 stipulates clearly that in the event of a business transaction, the buyer expressly or by inference, informs the seller about any particular function for which the items are being purchased, the implied condition that the items obtained under the contract are virtually fit for that function applies11. This is especially true whether or not the similar products have normally been supplied under any conditions12. The only condition under which the seller’s prayers can be allowed is where the conditions prove that the buyer had not complied with the seller’s requirements or that it was wrongful to act in arbitrary manner as the use of the item13. This is normally a tall order for seller defendants14. The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 In order to absolve the contractor who renovated the pipes from liability, the Court may have interpreted the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 in a simultaneous manner. The latter statute aims to cushion consumers from poor workmanship or the rendering of substandard services,15 since it covers contracts for services and construction materials16. The court wholly interpreted the law and established that the service provider used the seller’s skills and judgement in trying to fit the incompatible items17. Notably, like the Sale of Goods Act, the Supply of Goods and Services Act contains legal rights, which are not precisely stipulated in any contract, but must be considered for application in a contract involving business transaction18. These are that; the seller will render the service with appropriate care and knowledge; the service will be implemented in realistic timeframe unless the parties to the contract have agreed on a specific timetable; and lastly, the service will be rendered at fair cost unless both parties have agreed on the specifics of the cost19. The law also stipulates the remedies which are applicable to users in case a violation of these statutory provisions takes place20. In light of these provisions, the Appellate Court may have considered the fact that the incompatible valves and adapters supplied by BSS would not work even if Makers had deployed the best skills and judgement to the project, because the items were inherently not fit for the purpose21. But in a rejoinder, the defendant cited Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685, a case in which the defendant won the battle. Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd BSS cited the verdict on Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [1939] 1 All ER 685 case in which the buyer purchased a customized coat that was specifically made for him by the seller. The coat was established as fit for its purpose spare for the medical complications which came as a result of using the item22. In the Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd, the court held that because the buyer’s skin had a unique sensitivity, the putting on of the cloth caused him dermatitis. The judges pointed out that the complication would have been avoided if the buyer had no sensitive skin, or if he had expressly or implicitly hinted to his health complication in the presence of the seller. But due to the non-committal buyer, the seller was found not to have violated the implied term in relation to the item’s fitness for purpose23. The judges ruled that the defendant dutifully and legally delivered the item24. In this recent case, the Court upheld the verdict entered by the lower court to invalidate BSSs claim, by arguing that the item’s failure to work as intended stemmed from a faulty feature. The Court pointed out that unlike the Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd case in which the purchaser failed to furnish the seller with all the relevant information about his skin sensitivity, the claimant in BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd expressly and implicitly made known his intended use of the items to the seller25. The Court held that it was unfair to draw any similarities from the 1930’s case for application to the recent one, because BSS could not claim any appropriate unknowns about the working condition of the sold items. The judges noted that BSS was a specialist dealer and could not claim lack of knowledge about the working condition of the two items26. Summary BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809 case is an important reminder for buyers, and suppliers of items that fitness for purpose guides business transactions. The terms are stipulated in the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 to protect consumers from the impacts of the supply of faulty items and or poor workmanship27. It is important for a consumer who is purchasing an item to ensure that he or she sends an absolutely clear message to the seller about the purpose he or she wants the good to serve28. This way, the consumer will be cushioned from the liabilities that may arise from the use of that specific faulty good29. In this case, the Appellate Court reaffirmed the applicability of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in relation to whether the claimant had respected the defendant’s skill and judgment30. Generally, in conditions where the purchaser has expressed or hinted at the purposes of an item which he or she is buying, an obvious implied condition of fitness for purpose exists, which the supplier can only reverse by tabling evidence that the buyer disregarded or decided that it was insensitive for him or her to dance to the tune of the supplier. Bibliography Ahmad et al, ‘Consumer’s right to redress against traders under the law of supply of goods: a comparative study of selected jurisdictions,’ Journal of Global Management, vol. 2 no. 2, 2011, pp.146-162. Austen-Baker, R., (2011), Implied Terms in English Contract Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, London, pp. 23-44. Beale, H., ‘Unfair Terms in Contracts: Proposals for Reform in the UK,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 27 no.3, 2004, pp.289-316. Bon, G., ‘Preview Unascertained goods and retention of title,’ Credit Control, vol. 18 no. 5, 1997, pp.10-15. Bradley, K., ‘Classes, Cultures and Politics: Essays on British History for Ross McKibbin, History, vol. 97 no. 325, 2012, pp.119-121. Bridge, M.G., (1997), The Sale of Goods, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p.123 Bridge, M.G., (2012), Benjamins Sale of Goods: Up-to-date to June 2012. Sweet & Maxwell, London, p.1. Brown, S., ‘Protection of the Small Business as a Credit Consumer: Paying Lip Service to Protection of the Vulnerable or Providing a Real Service to the Struggling Entrepreneur?’ Common Law World Review, vol. 41 no.1, 2012, pp.59-96. Cartwright, P., ‘Crime, punishment, and consumer protection,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol.30 no. 1, 2012, pp.1-20. David, B., ‘Taking Contract Law Seriously,’ Economics, Management & Financial Markets, vol. 7 no.3, 2012, pp.83-88. de Lacy, J., ‘Selling in the Course of a Business Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979,’ Modern Law Review, vol. 62 no. 5, 1999, p.776. Dietz, T., ‘Contract Law, Relational Contracts, and Reputational Networks in International Trade: An Empirical Investigation into Cross-Border Contracts in the Software Industry,’ Law and Social Inquiry, vol.37 no.1, p.25. Johnson, H., ‘Recent developments in the law of sale and unfair contract terms,’ Managerial Law, vol.38 no. 2, 1996, pp.1-32. Kleemann, F.C., (2012), A Scottish Perspective on the Sale of Goods Act and Applicability of UN Sale of Goods Law: Internationales Kaufvertragsrecht: Schottischer "Sale of Goods Act" und UN-Rechtsrahmen, GRIN Verlag, London, pp.76-98. Larsen, G., and Lawson, R., ‘Consumer Rights: An Assessment of Justice. Journal of Business Ethics,’ vol. 112 no. 3, 2013, pp.515-528. Mak, V., ‘Missing Bearings – Information Duties of the Seller under Section 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979,’ Modern Law Review, vol. 70 no. 6, 2007, pp.1002-1007. Miller, C., ‘Defective goods: Liability under the new law,’ International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, vol. 22 no. 8, 1994, p.39. Ndekugri, I., and Russell, V., ‘Insolvency and resolution of construction contract disputes by adjudication in the UK construction industry,’ Construction Management & Economics, vol. 23 no.4, 2005, pp.399-408. O’Riordan, J., (2003), A2 Law for AQA, Heinemann, New York, pp.131-143. Osuji, O., ‘Business-to-Consumer Harassment, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the UK-A Distorted Picture of Uniform Harmonization?’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 34 no.4, 2011, pp.437-453. Osuji, O., ‘Business-to-Consumer Harassment, Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and the UK-A Distorted Picture of Uniform Harmonization?’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol.34 no.4, 2011, pp.437-453. Schmolke, K.U., ‘Expulsion and Valuation Clauses - Freedom of Contract vs. Legal Paternalism in German Partnership and Close Corporation Law,’ European Company & Financial Law Review, vol. 9 no. 3, 2012, pp.307-341. Trott, L., and Coe, E., ‘Terms implied by statute in the sale of goods,’ Credit Control, vol.19 no.10, 1998, pp.6-11. Twigg-Flesner, C., ‘Time to Do the Job Properly-The Case for a New Approach to EU Consumer Legislation,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 33 no. 4, 2010, pp.355-375. Whittaker, S., ‘Unfair Contract Terms, Unfair Prices and Bank Charges,’ Modern Law Review, vol.74 no.1, 2011, pp.106-122. Willett, C., ‘Fairness and Consumer Decision Making under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 33 no.3, 2010, pp.247-273. Williams, J., and Hare, C., ‘Early Experiences of the Enforcement of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive in Scotland,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 33 no.4, 2010, pp. 377-401. Wilson, A., and MacArthur, R., ‘Sale of goods: In the course of a business, Consumer Policy Review, vol. 9 no. 6, 1999, pp. 220-224. Wilson, T., Howell, N., and Sheehan, G.,’ Protecting the Most Vulnerable in Consumer Credit Transactions,’ Journal of Consumer Policy, vol. 32 no. 2, 2009, pp.117-140. Read More