Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis [UK] Ltd. & Ors [2006] EWHC 1900 (Comm) (25 July 2006)

Balmoral Group Ltd v Borealis [UK] Ltd. & Ors [2006] EWHC 1900 (Comm) (25 July 2006)

The court found that borecene was not reasonably fit for the purpose of manufacturing static oil tanks by rotomoulding, that this unfitness caused the failures in Balmoral's tanks, and that Borealis was in breach of the implied term as to fitness for purpose. The exclusion clauses relied on by Borealis were not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1900 (Comm)
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 / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Misrepresentation, Exclusion Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms, Damages
Contract Law Commercial Law Product Liability Sale of Goods Implied Terms Misrepresentation Exclusion Clauses Unfair Contract Terms +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Balmoral Group Ltd

Claimant

Borealis [UK] Ltd

Defendant

Borealis AS

Defendant

Borealis A/S

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute / High Court Trial Judgment

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 unfitness caused the failures in Balmoral's tanks
  3. 3 Whether Borealis was in breach of contract or made actionable misrepresentations

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that borecene was not reasonably fit for the purpose of manufacturing static oil tanks by rotomoulding, that this unfitness caused the failures in Balmoral's tanks, and that Borealis was in breach of the implied term as to fitness for purpose. The exclusion clauses relied on by Borealis were not incorporated or were unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Balmoral was entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Borealis to pay damages to Balmoral
  • Exclusion clauses not enforceable