Whitecap Leisure Ltd v John H Rundle Ltd & Anor

Whitecap Leisure Ltd v John H Rundle Ltd & Anor

The cable tow system supplied by Rundles was not of satisfactory quality nor fit for its purpose, breaching implied terms of the contract. However, Whitecap had accepted the goods and was not entitled to reject them; its remedy is damages for breach of warranty and negligence. Rundles cannot rely on exclusion clauses due to ambiguity and lack of clarity. Counterclaims for conversion and outstanding invoices fail except for items retained by Whitecap, subject to further submissions.

Parties
Claimant: Whitecap Leisure Limited; Defendant: John H Rundle Limited; Third Party: Michael Rollason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Judgment for claimant on liability; damages for breach of warranty and negligence; counterclaim dismissed except for items retained by Whitecap, subject to further submissions.
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Breach of Warranty, Negligence, Exclusion Clauses, Sale of Goods, Supply of Goods and Services, Damages, Acceptance and Rejection of Goods
Contract Law Tort Law Implied Terms Breach of Warranty Negligence Exclusion Clauses Sale of Goods Supply of Goods and Services +2 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Whitecap Leisure Limited

Claimant

John H Rundle Limited

Defendant

Michael Rollason

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cable tow system supplied was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose under implied terms
  2. 2 Whether Whitecap was entitled to reject the goods
  3. 3 Whether exclusion clauses barred Whitecap's claims

Ratio Decidendi

The cable tow system supplied by Rundles was not of satisfactory quality nor fit for its purpose, breaching implied terms of the contract. However, Whitecap had accepted the goods and was not entitled to reject them; its remedy is damages for breach of warranty and negligence. Rundles cannot rely on exclusion clauses due to ambiguity and lack of clarity. Counterclaims for conversion and outstanding invoices fail except for items retained by Whitecap, subject to further submissions.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant on liability; damages for breach of warranty and negligence; counterclaim dismissed except for items retained by Whitecap, subject to further submissions.

Orders

  • Whitecap entitled to damages for breach of warranty and negligence, quantum to be determined.
  • Rundles' counterclaim for conversion and outstanding invoices dismissed except for items retained by Whitecap, subject to further submissions.