Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA [2006] EWCA Civ 1105 (27 July 2006)

Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA [2006] EWCA Civ 1105 (27 July 2006)

The trial judge erred by rejecting the defendant's expert evidence on the mistaken basis that the wrong legal standard was applied, and failed to properly resolve the central conflict of expert evidence regarding the wine's quality at delivery. The case must be remitted for retrial to determine, applying the correct legal test, whether the champagne was of satisfactory quality at the time of delivery.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1105
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Friarwood Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Champagne Cattier S.A.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment, Remitted for Retrial
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order for retrial; costs order set aside and reserved to retrial judge.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Expert Evidence, Remittal for Retrial
Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Expert Evidence Remittal for Retrial

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Friarwood Ltd

Claimant/respondent

Champagne Cattier S.A.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment, Remitted for Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the champagne supplied was of satisfactory quality at the time of delivery under section 14(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test in preferring expert evidence
  3. 3 Whether the wine had deteriorated more quickly than reasonably expected

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by rejecting the defendant's expert evidence on the mistaken basis that the wrong legal standard was applied, and failed to properly resolve the central conflict of expert evidence regarding the wine's quality at delivery. The case must be remitted for retrial to determine, applying the correct legal test, whether the champagne was of satisfactory quality at the time of delivery.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order for retrial; costs order set aside and reserved to retrial judge.

Orders

  • Judgment set aside
  • Case remitted for retrial