Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc

Air Transworld Ltd v Bombardier Inc

The contract terms, properly construed, were sufficiently clear to exclude the implied conditions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The contract was an international supply contract under UCTA 1977, so the Act's restrictions and reasonableness test did not apply. The claimant did not deal as a consumer. Even if the reasonableness test applied, the exclusion/limitation clauses were reasonable in the context of a commercial contract between parties of equal bargaining power.

Parties
Claimant: Air Transworld Limited; Defendant: Bombardier Inc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Exclusion Clauses, International Supply Contracts, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Sale of Goods Act 1979, Consumer Status, Reasonableness Test
Contract Law Commercial Law Conflict of Laws Exclusion Clauses International Supply Contracts Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Sale of Goods Act 1979 Consumer Status +1 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Air Transworld Limited

Claimant

Bombardier Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract terms excluded implied conditions under the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the contract was an 'international supply contract' under UCTA 1977
  3. 3 Whether the claimant dealt as a consumer under UCTA 1977

Ratio Decidendi

The contract terms, properly construed, were sufficiently clear to exclude the implied conditions of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The contract was an international supply contract under UCTA 1977, so the Act's restrictions and reasonableness test did not apply. The claimant did not deal as a consumer. Even if the reasonableness test applied, the exclusion/limitation clauses were reasonable in the context of a commercial contract between parties of equal bargaining power.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant not entitled to reject the aircraft or claim damages based on rejection
  • Claimant to pay the defendant’s costs, subject to assessment if not agreed