Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis [UK] Ltd. & Ors

Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis [UK] Ltd. & Ors

Balmoral failed to prove that Borecene was not reasonably fit for the purpose of manufacturing oil tanks; failures were attributable to Balmoral’s design and manufacturing practices, not to any inherent defect in Borecene. Even if liability had been established, Borealis’ exclusion/limitation clauses were incorporated into the contracts and, for international supply contracts, were not subject to UCTA 1977. For UK contracts, the exclusion clauses did not satisfy the reasonableness requirement under UCTA 1977, but as there was no breach, no damages were awarded.

Parties
Claimant: Balmoral Group Ltd; Defendant: Borealis [UK] Ltd; Defendant: Borealis AS; Defendant: Borealis A/S
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute (breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Negligence) / Final Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms—fitness for Purpose, Exclusion Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Damages for Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, International Supply Contracts
Contract Law Sale of Goods Product Liability Implied Terms—fitness for Purpose Exclusion Clauses Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Damages for Breach of Contract Misrepresentation +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balmoral Group Ltd

Claimant

Borealis [UK] Ltd

Defendant

Borealis AS

Defendant

Borealis A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute (breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Negligence) / Final Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Borecene supplied by Borealis was reasonably fit for the purpose of manufacturing static oil tanks by rotomoulding
  2. 2 Whether Borealis breached implied terms as to fitness for purpose or made actionable misrepresentations
  3. 3 Whether exclusion/limitation clauses in Borealis’ standard terms were incorporated and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Balmoral failed to prove that Borecene was not reasonably fit for the purpose of manufacturing oil tanks; failures were attributable to Balmoral’s design and manufacturing practices, not to any inherent defect in Borecene. Even if liability had been established, Borealis’ exclusion/limitation clauses were incorporated into the contracts and, for international supply contracts, were not subject to UCTA 1977. For UK contracts, the exclusion clauses did not satisfy the reasonableness requirement under UCTA 1977, but as there was no breach, no damages were awarded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed