Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

[js556]

If a supplier sells you a product and requires you to sign a sales form stating "Your supplier is not responsible for any damage caused by this product" which is incorporated into the contract, would that be a valid exclusion clause. If that product had a defect which damages your property, would you then sue for breach of Sale of Goods Act?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

describe how you believe the clause is incorporated.. what do you mean by incorporated? I haven't done tort law for some time..so i'll get back to you on the property damage. It however does seem very unreasonable. How about you tell us the facts as concisely as possible please. Thank you.

[js556]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

If we assume the signed sales form is incorporated into the contract i.e. so the clause is as well, is there any legislation which prevents such a clause from having any effect such as Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 or the Consumer Protection Act 1987? In particular, I'm not sure whether section 6(2) of Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 prevents it or whether it is Section 7 of Consumer Protection Act 1987.

[des8]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

Hi and welcome.
As Openlaw has suggested, more detail would be useful.
Is this a contract between businesses, or consumer/supplier?
However as a rule of thumb clauses excluding liability have to be very specific.
The words used must clearly and unequivocally cover what they are intended to cover.
The courts regard it as "... inherently improbable that one party to thecontract should intend to absolve the other party from the consequences of the latter's own negligence" .
(Gillespie Bros & Co Ltd -v- Roy Bowles (Transport) Limited [1973] 1 QB 400.)

[Openlaw15]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

there are several sources....relevant higher court cases (common law), UCTA1977, Consumer Regs (EU).

What was the contract for - what was the product itself; how were the product/s defective that led to the damage to 'property'? Were there any warning on the product to use in particular way?

Corporation point: Were was the clause located, ie in one contract document or separate paper said be a part of the contract? Was the clause brought to your attention at the time of signing? It seems to me unduly onerous (harsh) so i can't see it being legal. Who made the purchase - 1 or 2 persons.

How much is the property damage valued at?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

"Your supplier is not responsible for any damage caused by this product"

It is imply too broad a clause, ie 'your supplier & 'not responsible' implies the manufacturer could be at fault. Which product, whose product...which damage, what type of damage. As it alludes that death and personal injury or reasonable losses are not covered. I think the clause is very inferior. In short, this clause is too vague to be taken seriously and far too onerous to be legal.

[js556]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

Sorry, I left out some details. The product was a gas bottle and the defect was a leak, which resulted in fire damage to a shed. The shed was worth £1000. The supplier said he just had a delivery from the manufacturer, so I assume they would be brand new. The contract is between a consumer and supplier (not manufacturer), whether is manufacturer is liable I don't know.

[des8]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

No fire insurance?

[nemesis45]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

Sorry, I left out some details. The product was a gas bottle and the defect was a leak, which resulted in fire damage to a shed. The shed was worth £1000. The supplier said he just had a delivery from the manufacturer, so I assume they would be brand new. The contract is between a consumer and supplier (not manufacturer), whether is manufacturer is liable I don't know.

I've just checked a couple of invoices for " patio gas bottles " I note the phrase " the supplier will not be responsible for damage caused By Misuse of the Product"
Gas bottles a routinely refilled up to the date their patency is limited to. I think I've only seen one " brand new" bottle in 20 years.

nem

[nemesis45]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

The supplier would be responsible I think if a leaking cylinder was supplied, a rare occurrence I suspect!

The vast majority of leaks resulting in damage or not are caused by improperly fitted or inappropriate regulators
and failing gas tubing, the user is responsible for ensuring safety checks are routinely made.

nem

[js556]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

In which case, which piece of legislation would make that exclusion clause invalid? Because it is between a supplier and consumer I assume it's not subject to the reasonableness test?

[Openlaw15]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

In which case, which piece of legislation would make that exclusion clause invalid? Because it is between a supplier and consumer I assume it's not subject to the reasonableness test?

Keep it simple, use my ideas that the clause is too vague and too onerous to be valid: Denning (judge) in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1967). Do not show all your cards yet, as it were...do it pro rata. Give the supplier something to think about. The problem is clauses of this type normally deny liability for negligence et al..but there is none here. So tests such as Canada which pertains to the criteria to satisfy a clause to avoid liability for negligence et al are pointless.

[js556]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

I've found the exact clause, I simplified it a bit. The exact clause is 'Your bottled gas supplier is not responsible for any loss or damage caused by any products sold'. Does that make any difference? It doesn't seem like an exclusion of negligence though I'm not sure whether a leak is a product defect or if it means the product is simply not of satisfactory quality/ fit for purpose.

[des8]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

It depends when the contract was struck.
Assuming it was after 01/10/2015 the legislation to rely on is Consumer Rights Act 2015.
Refer to Part 2 sec 62 "Requirement for contract terms and notices to be fair"

You need to be sure the goods were faulty cf post 10

[des8]

Re: Defective products and exclusion clauses in contract law

Just read your post 13.
The product sold is gas.
Is the cylinder also purchased, or is it a rental, ownership retained by eg Calor Gas?
If the cylinder gave way , that may not be the product sold so the clause would not apply.