Sale of Goods Act

[Bawn]

Hi

 

I'd be grateful for poster's thoughts on the following query.

 

In a business to business context, can a supplier's contract terms delete the reasonable quality or fit for purposes terms implied from the sale of goods act.

 

So, for example, would a term stating "instead of any warranty implied by law, we will replace the product if you give us 10 days notice" be enough to permit the supplier to say that I (as a small business), because of this term, cannot rely upon the fitness for purpose terms in the Sale of Goods Act.

 

Thanks

[citizenB]

Welcome to the Consumer Action Group, I have moved your thread to the correct forum - you need do nothing, it is purely administrative. I am sure someone will be along to answer your query as soon as they can.

[Eversir]

Any statutory rights that a normal consumer has are granted implicitly in a business to business contract, unless specifically removed via an exclusion clause in the contract terms.

 

It is sometimes possible to challenge exclusion clauses though, and there are some things which they can't exclude (like responsibility if someone dies or is injured from carelessness).

[ericsbrother]

It rather depends on the item, finished goods would have to reach the standard of merchantable quality but components of something that you are manufacturing may well have such an exclusion because of the variable nature of their use. So, if a middleman is trying to get around selling you B grade stock then it had better be worth it to you on price.

[anglevan]

If memory serves me right, 'fit for purpose' only applies to consumer transactions which this case is not.

[steampowered]

Yes, in a B2B context you can exclude the implied terms about fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality. This is permitted by s55 of SOGA. The only warranty which cannot be excluded is the warranty that you own what you are selling. Similarly, in a B2B context you can say that the only available remedy for a defective product is replacement.

 

I'm not sure the words you have posted make much difference to be honest. Under SOGA the supplier can choose whether to offer a repair, replacement or refund anyway.

 

If SOGA has been excluded you can still try to rely on the concept of 'implied terms' under common law (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_terms_in_English_law). This will often get you to the same place as a SOGA claim.

[Paulod]

Thanks all. Very helpful input. The contract terms are a little unclear and I suspect that there may also be some merit in contesting whether the exclusion clause is effective. Thanks again.