A farmer was sued when a towing hitch on his Landrover came loose, releasing the trailer which then caused a serious accident. When sued for the damage, the farmer brought proceedings against the garage proprietor who supplied the towing hitch, relying on the warranty. By the time the accident occurred, the farmer had been aware that the locking mechanism on the towing hitch was faulty, but he had continued to use it.
Held: The farmer’s claim against the garage was rejected.
Lord Diplock said: ‘I would accept that in the case of the coupling the warranty was still continuing up to the date, some three to six months before the accident, when it first became known to the farmer that the handle of the locking mechanism was missing. Up to that time the farmer would have had a right to rely upon the dealers warranty as excusing him from making his own examination of the coupling to see if it were safe . . After it had become apparent to the farmer that the locking mechanism of the coupling was broken, and consequently that it was no longer in the same state as when it was delivered, the only implied warranty which could justify his failure to take the precaution either to get it mended or at least to find out whether it was safe to continue to use it in that condition, would be a warranty that the coupling could continue to be safely used to tow a trailer on a public highway notwithstanding that it was in an obviously damaged state. My Lords, any implication of a warranty in these terms needs only to be stated, to be rejected . . In the state in which the farmer knew the coupling to be at the time of the accident, there was no longer any warranty by the dealers of its continued safety in use on which the farmer was entitled to rely.
. . The farmer’s liability arose, not from the defective design of the coupling but from his own negligence in failing, when he knew that the coupling was damaged, to have it repaired or to ascertain if it was still safe to use. The issue of causation, therefore, on which the farmer’s claim against the dealers depended, was whether his negligence resulted directly and naturally, in the ordinary course of events from the dealer’s breach of warranty. Manifestly it did not.’
Judges:
Lord Diplock
Citations:
[1982] AC 225, [1981] 1 All ER 1185, [1981] RTR 346, [1981] 2 Lloyds Rep 17, [1981] 2 WLR 713
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Borealis Ab v Geogas Trading Sa ComC 9-Nov-2010
The parties had contracted for sale and purchase of butane for processing. It was said to have been contaminated. The parties now disputed the effect on damages for breach including on causation, remoteness, mitigation and quantum.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Contract
Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.425893