PEEBLES & Anor v REMBRAND BUILDERS MERCHANTS Ltd [2017] ScotSC 28 (18 April 2017)

PEEBLES & Anor v REMBRAND BUILDERS MERCHANTS Ltd [2017] ScotSC 28 (18 April 2017)

The court held that the roof tiles supplied were not of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 due to a latent defect in the coating, which caused significant discolouration within five years. However, the pursuers failed to prove the cost of repair or diminution in value, and replacement was not reasonable or proportionate. The pursuers also failed to mitigate their loss by refusing further remedial works. The only recoverable loss was for inconvenience suffered between 2009 and 2012, assessed at £1,500.

Citation
[2017] ScotSC 28
Parties
Pursuer: John Peebles; Pursuer: Catherine Peebles; Defender: Rembrand Builders Merchants Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Breach of Contract (sale of Goods) / Judgment After Proof (trial)
Outcome
Decree for pursuers in part; damages awarded for inconvenience only.
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Implied Terms, Satisfactory Quality, Damages, Mitigation of Loss, Non Pecuniary Loss
Contract Law Consumer Law Sale of Goods Implied Terms Satisfactory Quality Damages Mitigation of Loss Non Pecuniary Loss

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Peebles

Pursuer

Catherine Peebles

Pursuer

Rembrand Builders Merchants Limited

Defender

Procedural Posture

Civil Breach of Contract (sale of Goods) / Judgment After Proof (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the roof tiles supplied were of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979
  2. 2 Whether the pursuers are entitled to damages for breach of contract and, if so, the appropriate measure of damages
  3. 3 Whether the pursuers failed to mitigate their loss by refusing further remedial works

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the roof tiles supplied were not of satisfactory quality under section 14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 due to a latent defect in the coating, which caused significant discolouration within five years. However, the pursuers failed to prove the cost of repair or diminution in value, and replacement was not reasonable or proportionate. The pursuers also failed to mitigate their loss by refusing further remedial works. The only recoverable loss was for inconvenience suffered between 2009 and 2012, assessed at £1,500.

Court Disposition

Decree for pursuers in part; damages awarded for inconvenience only.

Orders

  • Decree against the defenders for payment to the pursuers of £1,500.
  • All other pleas repelled.