When partners resign or retire from a partnership, the partnership agreement will normally govern their rights and responsibilities following their resignation. However, where the terms of their departure are not agreed, are they entitled to the value of...
In this dispute relating to the Sale of Goods Act, Bell Lax acted for the defendant.
The defendant was a property developer and the case involved a building he had converted into flats.
The defendant bought electric boilers from the claimant to be used in the development. However, the defendant did not pay for all the materials and the claimant commenced proceedings to recover the shortfall.
The defendant counterclaimed for damages for breach of the contract to supply the boilers. He contended that the boilers were neither of satisfactory quality nor reasonably fit for their purpose, contrary to sections 14(2) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The defendant argued that the boilers reduced the home energy ratings for the flats making them less saleable.
The judge found that the defendant had made it clear to the claimant that he was buying the boilers for installation in flats that were being converted for resale. In addition, that any feature of the boiler which substantially increased the risk of a delayed sale of the flats would have rendered them not reasonably fit for their purpose.
The court found in favour of Bell Lax’s client.
