MG CONSTRUCTION LTD AGAINST AGD EQUIPMENT LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_72 (14 July 2020)

MG CONSTRUCTION LTD AGAINST AGD EQUIPMENT LTD [2020] ScotCS CSOH_72 (14 July 2020)

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the casualty weld was present at the time of delivery. The evidence did not exclude the possibility that the weld was made after delivery, possibly following misuse. The pursuer did not discharge the burden of proof that the hammer was not of satisfactory quality at delivery. Accordingly, the claim fails.

Citation
[2020] ScotCS CSOH_72
Parties
Pursuer: M G Construction Limited; Defender: AGD Equipment Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (breach of Contract, Sale of Goods) / Proof Before Answer on Liability
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms as to Quality, Breach of Contract, Causation, Mitigation of Loss, Admissibility of Evidence
Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms as to Quality Breach of Contract Causation Mitigation of Loss Admissibility of Evidence

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M G Construction Limited

Pursuer

AGD Equipment Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (breach of Contract, Sale of Goods) / Proof Before Answer on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pile driving hammer supplied was of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the casualty weld was present at the time of delivery or made after delivery
  3. 3 Whether the pursuer failed to mitigate its loss or broke the chain of causation by its actions after discovering a defect

Ratio Decidendi

The pursuer failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the casualty weld was present at the time of delivery. The evidence did not exclude the possibility that the weld was made after delivery, possibly following misuse. The pursuer did not discharge the burden of proof that the hammer was not of satisfactory quality at delivery. Accordingly, the claim fails.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuer's claim dismissed
  • No order as to further procedure on quantum