Injury Law Chambers Ltd v Adelco Screen Process Ltd [2024] EW Misc 2 (CC) (16 January 2024)

Injury Law Chambers Ltd v Adelco Screen Process Ltd [2024] EW Misc 2 (CC) (16 January 2024)

The claimant (by assignment from Amicus) lost the right to reject the machines because Amicus continued to act as owner after purported rejection, contrary to s.35 SGA 1979. No breach of express or implied warranty was established, as the defendant and manufacturer took reasonable steps to repair and even offered a replacement. No collateral contract was proved due to lack of specific representations or evidence of contractual intent. The claim failed on all grounds.

Citation
[2024] EW Misc 2 (CC)
Parties
Claimant: Injury Law Chambers Ltd; Defendant: Adelco Screen Process Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Sale of Goods / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Collateral Contract, Assignment of Rights, Breach of Warranty
Contract Law Commercial Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Collateral Contract Assignment of Rights Breach of Warranty

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Injury Law Chambers Ltd

Claimant

Adelco Screen Process Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Sale of Goods / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a statutory or contractual right to reject the machines under the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of express or implied warranty by the defendant
  3. 3 Whether a collateral contract existed between the claimant and defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant (by assignment from Amicus) lost the right to reject the machines because Amicus continued to act as owner after purported rejection, contrary to s.35 SGA 1979. No breach of express or implied warranty was established, as the defendant and manufacturer took reasonable steps to repair and even offered a replacement. No collateral contract was proved due to lack of specific representations or evidence of contractual intent. The claim failed on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed