Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA

Friarwood Ltd v Champagne Cattier SA

The trial judge erred in law by rejecting Mr. Stevenson's expert evidence on the mistaken basis that he applied the wrong legal test, and failed to properly resolve the fundamental conflict between the experts on whether the champagne had aged more than could reasonably have been expected. The appellate court could not substitute its own findings and therefore ordered a retrial.

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; Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; retrial ordered
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Expert Evidence
Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Expert Evidence

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 2 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; Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by rejecting Mr. Stevenson's expert evidence on the mistaken basis that he applied the wrong legal test, and failed to properly resolve the fundamental conflict between the experts on whether the champagne had aged more than could reasonably have been expected. The appellate court could not substitute its own findings and therefore ordered a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; retrial ordered

Orders

  • Judgment and costs order set aside
  • Case remitted for retrial