With the United Kingdom having shaken up the selling of goods and services with the passing on the Consumer Rights Act , it will be interesting to look at a case that was appealed to the Court of Appeal and see if anything different would or could happen under the new legislation.
The case of Lowe and Another v W Machell Joinery Ltd  EWCA Civ 794 shook up the law with regard to terms implied into contracts.
Mr and Mrs Lowe converted a barn for residential use and placed a number of orders with W Machell Joinery Limited. Crucially this was done during a conversation with no formal written quotation. The element of this order that led to this case was a bespoke, elaborately designed wooden staircase costing £16,000 (Exclusive of Value Added Tax).
The Lowe’s paid for the staircase on 4th June 2009 and it was delivered to their property on 5th June 2009. However on 12th June 2009 the Lowe’s rejected the staircase by letter and had another staircase supplied by another company. It was claimed by the Lowe’s that they were entitled to reject the staircase because the verbal contract with W Machell Joinery Limited included the installation of the staircase and it should have been installed.
Mr and Mrs Lowe issued proceedings to recover the price of the staircase in July 2009.
Technology and Construction Court (TCC) decision
The trail was heard in July 2010 and by this time the Lowe’s relied on further reasons justifying their rejection of the staircase which included that had the staircase been installed, it would not have complied their Building Regulations.
At the TCC hearing in Leeds, Yorkshire the judge held that the original reasons for rejecting the goods were unjustified. However, he further held that W Machell Joinery Limited were in breach of contract as the staircase did not comply with Building Regulations. However this breach was not sufficient justification for the Lowe’s to reject the staircase as he reasoned it would have been easy to modify the staircase in a number of ways to ensure compliance with Building Regulations.
The judge therefore dismissed the claim and you would expect this to be the end of the matter.
Court of Appeal
Mr and Mrs Lowe appealed against the decision to the Court of Appeal.
Here they raised an argument on appeal that was not fully relied upon in the original trial. This being that Section 14 of The Sale of Goods Act  implied terms into the contract between the parties which W Machell Joinery Limited subsequently breached entitling the Lowes to reject the staircase.
Section 14(2) of the Act provided that where goods are sold by a seller in the course of a business transaction there is an implied term that the goods are of satisfactory quality.
Section 14(3) provided that when goods are sold by a seller in the course of a business transaction where the buyer makes the seller aware that the goods have a particular purpose, a term is implied that the goods are fit for the purpose for which they have been supplied.
Therefore the Lowe’s also argued the term should be implied into the contract between the parties that the staircase would comply with the relevant Building Regulations and British Standards.
Court of Appeal Decision
The Court of Appeal found that there was a breach of contract and overturned the decision handed down in the TCC where he found this breach entitled the Lowes to reject the staircase.
The Judge found that the breach of the contract was of the implied terms that the staircase had to be of satisfactory quality and, because J Machell Joinery Limited was aware that the barn was to be converted to residential use, it needed to be fit for purpose as required by the Act.
The Court found “fit for purpose” included compliance with Building Regulations and therefore there was an implied term that the staircase would comply with the relevant Building Regulations and British Standards, albeit under cover of “fit for purpose”.
While the only way to see if this would hold true under the Consumer Rights Act  as the legislation still requires these tests, it is highly likely a similar case would result in the same outcome.
Is this fair?
W Machell Joinery Limited contracted with the Lowes to supply a staircase that did not comply with Building Regulations. Further W Machell Joinery was not responsible for obtaining Building Regulation approval for the staircase. Yet to show how obtuse the law can be, if W Machell Joinery Limited changed the specification of the staircase to be compliant with Building Regulations, this would not be compliant with the design requested by the Lowes. Therefore either way, J Machell Joinery Limited would be in breach of contract.
The solution to this anomaly from the Court of Appeal to avoid this situation was that W Machell Joinery Limited should have made the Lowe’s aware the staircase was not compliant with Building Regulations before it had been manufactured. The Lowe’s would have had the choice to continue with the design and risk the staircase not complying with Building Regulations, or to alter the design to make it compliant.
Implied terms generally
From a construction industry perspective both The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act  as amended by The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act  and The Supply of Goods and Services Act  as superseded by the Consumer Rights Act  imply terms into construction contracts.
Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996
This Act implied terms which included:
- Entitlement to stage payments
- Limit to right to withhold payment
- The right to refer disputes to adjudication
- Mechanism for payment, including payment date and notice of amount
- Prohibiting conditional payment provisions
- Right to suspend for non-performance
If the above provisions were not included in a construction contract, the Scheme for Construction Contracts applies, in effect being the implied terms.
Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982
This Act implied terms that:
- Service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill
- Supplier will carry out the service within a reasonable time
- Supplier will be paid a reasonable charge
These are still required under the Consumer Rights Act .
Further the courts are empowered to also imply terms into contracts, and these fall into two categories:
- Where a contract has been entered into between the parties, to make the contract work successfully a term needs to be implied into the contract. For example, the language may be ambiguous and require clarifying; and
- In construction contracts there are certain usual terms that are implied unless the parties wish to exclude or change these implied terms. An examples of these implied terms for would be that the parties will co-operate with each other, and that the parties will not prevent completion from taking place.
Can you prevent the Lowe v W Machell Joinery Limited happening?
The primary issue that allowed the dispute to reach the conclusion it did was that no written contract or terms of agreement existed between the parties, setting out the contract terms and what was to be delivered.
Where there is supply or manufacture and supply of high value items you should always draft a contract which details the obligations and liabilities of each party.
This will enable both parties to understanding their duties and obligations and hopefully avoid disputes arising in the future.
Further this will prevent terms being implied into contracts which were not the parties’ intentions at the time the contract was made. In reality the material fact there was no written document allowed the Lowe’s to have the court rule in their favour on matters that were unforeseen at the time of agreement to supply the staircase.
Ansell Murray Limited has experience of drafting bespoke contracts as well as ensuring standard forms are correctly assembled.