Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
• Lord Bridge goes on to say that his answer in relation to the question is not necessary for the outcome of this case and declines to answer one way or the other! It is interesting to note that if he had categorically answered the question, yes or no, it would be a clear example of an obiter dictum statement in a strong case by a senior judge and may well have been used in argument in a later case where this issue is at the core of the case. • Eventually, Lord Bridge turns to the ‘application of the statutory language’ to the case. • He states that only s 55(5)(a) and (c) are relevant. (This is the moment to re-read s 55(5)(a) and (c) in Figure 4.16, above, if you do not remember the provisions. Otherwise, one loses sight of the argument!) • As to s 55(5)(c), he says of course the buyer knew of the condition as it was standard throughout the trade. • As to s 55(5)(a), he states that there was evidence that similar limitations had never been negotiated with representative bodies. • Witnesses for the appellant said that it had always been their practice in genuine justified claims to settle above the price of the seeds but that, in this case, settlement had not been possible. Lord Bridge said ‘this evidence indicated a clear recognition…that reliance on the limitation of liability imposed by the relevant condition would not be fair or reasonable’. • Lord Bridge concluded, therefore, that wrong seed was supplied due to the negligence of the applicant’s sister company. Seedsmen could insure against the risk of crop failure caused by the wrong supply without materially increasing the cost of seeds.
DOI link for • Lord Bridge goes on to say that his answer in relation to the question is not necessary for the outcome of this case and declines to answer one way or the other! It is interesting to note that if he had categorically answered the question, yes or no, it would be a clear example of an obiter dictum statement in a strong case by a senior judge and may well have been used in argument in a later case where this issue is at the core of the case. • Eventually, Lord Bridge turns to the ‘application of the statutory language’ to the case. • He states that only s 55(5)(a) and (c) are relevant. (This is the moment to re-read s 55(5)(a) and (c) in Figure 4.16, above, if you do not remember the provisions. Otherwise, one loses sight of the argument!) • As to s 55(5)(c), he says of course the buyer knew of the condition as it was standard throughout the trade. • As to s 55(5)(a), he states that there was evidence that similar limitations had never been negotiated with representative bodies. • Witnesses for the appellant said that it had always been their practice in genuine justified claims to settle above the price of the seeds but that, in this case, settlement had not been possible. Lord Bridge said ‘this evidence indicated a clear recognition…that reliance on the limitation of liability imposed by the relevant condition would not be fair or reasonable’. • Lord Bridge concluded, therefore, that wrong seed was supplied due to the negligence of the applicant’s sister company. Seedsmen could insure against the risk of crop failure caused by the wrong supply without materially increasing the cost of seeds.
• Lord Bridge goes on to say that his answer in relation to the question is not necessary for the outcome of this case and declines to answer one way or the other! It is interesting to note that if he had categorically answered the question, yes or no, it would be a clear example of an obiter dictum statement in a strong case by a senior judge and may well have been used in argument in a later case where this issue is at the core of the case. • Eventually, Lord Bridge turns to the ‘application of the statutory language’ to the case. • He states that only s 55(5)(a) and (c) are relevant. (This is the moment to re-read s 55(5)(a) and (c) in Figure 4.16, above, if you do not remember the provisions. Otherwise, one loses sight of the argument!) • As to s 55(5)(c), he says of course the buyer knew of the condition as it was standard throughout the trade. • As to s 55(5)(a), he states that there was evidence that similar limitations had never been negotiated with representative bodies. • Witnesses for the appellant said that it had always been their practice in genuine justified claims to settle above the price of the seeds but that, in this case, settlement had not been possible. Lord Bridge said ‘this evidence indicated a clear recognition…that reliance on the limitation of liability imposed by the relevant condition would not be fair or reasonable’. • Lord Bridge concluded, therefore, that wrong seed was supplied due to the negligence of the applicant’s sister company. Seedsmen could insure against the risk of crop failure caused by the wrong supply without materially increasing the cost of seeds.
ABSTRACT