United Central Bakeries Ltd v Spooner Industries Ltd+Forbo Siegling (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_150 (05 September 2013)

United Central Bakeries Ltd v Spooner Industries Ltd+Forbo Siegling (UK) Ltd [2013] ScotCS CSOH_150 (05 September 2013)

The court held that Spooner did not give UCB reasonable notice of the Orgalime standard terms, so exclusion/limitation clauses were not incorporated. Spooner was not liable in contract or negligence as the belting was not proved unfit for purpose based on information available at the time, and there was no actionable misrepresentation. Siegling was not liable as there was insufficient evidence of negligent misrepresentation or failure to warn. The fire was caused by an unusual event (burning naan bread lodging in the belt), not by any breach of duty by the defenders.

Citation
[2013] ScotCS CSOH_150
Parties
Pursuer: United Central Bakeries Limited; First Defender: Spooner Industries Limited; Second Defender: Forbo Siegling (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
05 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action for Damages / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion After Proof
Outcome
Action dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms in Sale of Goods, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Fitness for Purpose, Exclusion/limitation Clauses, Incorporation of Standard Terms
Contract Law Tort/delict Product Liability Implied Terms in Sale of Goods Negligence Misrepresentation Fitness for Purpose Exclusion/limitation Clauses +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Central Bakeries Limited

Pursuer

Spooner Industries Limited

First Defender

Forbo Siegling (UK) Limited

Second Defender

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action for Damages / Outer House, Court of Session, Opinion After Proof

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Spooner is liable in contract for breach of implied terms under the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether Spooner and Siegling are liable in negligence for supplying unsuitable belting and/or failing to warn of flammability
  3. 3 Whether there was negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability of the belting

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Spooner did not give UCB reasonable notice of the Orgalime standard terms, so exclusion/limitation clauses were not incorporated. Spooner was not liable in contract or negligence as the belting was not proved unfit for purpose based on information available at the time, and there was no actionable misrepresentation. Siegling was not liable as there was insufficient evidence of negligent misrepresentation or failure to warn. The fire was caused by an unusual event (burning naan bread lodging in the belt), not by any breach of duty by the defenders.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed

Orders

  • Pursuer's claim dismissed
  • No damages awarded