Fitness For Purpose: Two Recent Cases

Two recent cases serve as useful reminders of the principles involved in relation to fitness for purpose in the context of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.

Case 1: BSS Group Plc v Makers (UK) Ltd (t/a Allied Services) [2011] EWCA Civ 809 click here h3

In the first case, a seller, BSS Group Plc ("BSS"), had supplied particular types of adaptor and valve to Makers (UK) Limited ("Makers") in connection with a plumbing project which formed part of renovation works being carried out at a public house in Cambridge. The adaptor and valve turned out to be incompatible, and within hours of activation the valve blew off causing a damaging flood to the ground floor of the public house. The issue in the case was whether BSS was in breach of the implied term as to fitness for purpose imposed by section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended).

Section 14 (3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979

This Section of the Sale of Goods Act makes it clear that where the seller sells goods in the course of a business and the purchaser, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller any particular purpose for which the goods are being bought, there is an implied term that the goods supplied under the contract are reasonably fit for that purpose, whether or not the purpose is that for which such goods are commonly supplied. There is an exception to this however where the circumstances show that the purchaser has not relied, or that it is unreasonable for him to rely, on the skill and judgement of the seller.

Note that this does not relate to the implied term of fitness for purpose which would usually apply in a design and build contract for building works as a whole.

The Initial Case

The judge in the initial case found that Makers had by a fax enquiry, written quotation and a written order, expressly specified a particular purpose to BSS. This purpose was that the valves were being bought for use with a particular "Uponor" system being used at the property, and Uponor type of adaptor. The valves in fact provided by BCC were of a different type to Uponor, with the result that the two items were incompatible, causing the flood to the property. The judge also found that Makers had relied on BSS's skill and judgment as to the compatibility of the valve and adaptor. The failure of BSS to supply valves which were compatible with the Uponor type of adapter was therefore held to be a breach of the implied term under the...