Gregg & Co. (Knottingley) Ltd. & Anor v Emhart Glass Ltd.

Gregg & Co. (Knottingley) Ltd. & Anor v Emhart Glass Ltd.

There was a single contract for the supply, installation, and commissioning of all six machines. No express standard terms (neither Gregg's nor Emhart's) were incorporated; only statutory implied terms applied. The machines were not of satisfactory quality nor fit for their known purpose at the time of supply, installation, or commissioning, breaching sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Emhart also owed and breached a common law duty of care in after-sales diagnostic and remedial services. Allied Glass was entitled to sue by assignment (and, if necessary, estoppel). Gregg/Allied were entitled to treat the contract as repudiated and claim damages; they were not entitled...

Parties
Part 20 Claimant: Gregg & Co. (Knottingley) Limited; Part 20 Claimant: Allied Glass Containers Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Emhart Glass Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial/technology and Construction Court (tcc) Part 20 Claim / Liability Trial (first Trial of Split Trial; Causation and Quantum Reserved)
Outcome
Judgment for Allied Glass (and Gregg) on liability; damages to be assessed.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Supply of Goods and Services, Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Assignment, Estoppel, Limitation of Liability
Contract Law Tort Law (negligence) Commercial Law Sale of Goods Supply of Goods and Services Implied Terms Breach of Contract Negligence +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregg & Co. (Knottingley) Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Allied Glass Containers Limited

Part 20 Claimant

Emhart Glass Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/technology and Construction Court (tcc) Part 20 Claim / Liability Trial (first Trial of Split Trial; Causation and Quantum Reserved)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was one contract or three for the supply and installation of inspection machines
  2. 2 What terms (express/implied) governed the contract(s)
  3. 3 Whether the equipment was fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality under the Sale of Goods Act 1979

Ratio Decidendi

There was a single contract for the supply, installation, and commissioning of all six machines. No express standard terms (neither Gregg's nor Emhart's) were incorporated; only statutory implied terms applied. The machines were not of satisfactory quality nor fit for their known purpose at the time of supply, installation, or commissioning, breaching sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Emhart also owed and breached a common law duty of care in after-sales diagnostic and remedial services. Allied Glass was entitled to sue by assignment (and, if necessary, estoppel). Gregg/Allied were entitled to treat the contract as repudiated and claim damages; they were not entitled...

Court Disposition

Judgment for Allied Glass (and Gregg) on liability; damages to be assessed.

Orders

  • Declaration that Emhart is liable for breach of contract and negligence
  • Damages to be assessed at a further hearing