Defective goods and subsequent loss

bucketybuck

Does anybody know what the actual law is concerning what liability a seller has regarding damages arising from the sale of a defective part?

As an example, say a motor factor sells a widget for a car over its parts counter. The customer fits the widget himself and drives the car for two days. The widget then fails and the car breaks down. The customer returns to the motor factor who immediately gives the customer a replacement widget free of charge.

The customer then returns to the motor factor and claims that because the car broke down due to a faulty widget, the motor factor is now liable for the vehicle hire costs the customer had to pay while the vehicle was off the road.

It is this second aspect I am curious about, does anybody know what actual law or statute applies? Please note I am not interested in opinions about what the seller should do, as I am sure everybody has a different opinion on that. What is the actual law?

hullaballoo

Why do you keep saying, "actual law"? Do you think there is some sort of alternative transitional law that we deal with here?

Aside from that, your question has too many variables for us to provide a proper answer here. A good place to start looking is the Sale of Goods Acts 1893 & 1980. However, you must have a good understanding of the principles of contract law in order for you to be able to interpret those Acts with any degree of accuracy.

NoQuarter

The relevant statute is the Defective Products Act, 1991. The law states that you can recover for any damage caused by a defective product except the damage to the defective product itself.

If you want to recover the cost of repairing your car, get a solicitor. Or do it yourself, but nobody can advise you on the steps to do it here.

Bepolite

I think he means the actual legal position rather than something like the waffle I normally contribute. The problem with not allowing over simplified waffle OP is that you will get pointed to the 'actual law' which is going to be some pretty bloody difficult to read statutes and case law which will likely be difficult enough to access.

You might also want to read:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/si/0011.html
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/si/0027.html

and probably a slightly different scenario, but what if the widget causes damage to the car through failure?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1991/en/act/pub/0028/index.html

In practice most consumer contracts limit their liability to consequential loss.

bucketybuck

hullaballoo wrote: »

Why do you keep saying, "actual law"? Do you think there is some sort of alternative transitional law that we deal with here?

Aside from that, your question has too many variables for us to provide a proper answer here. A good place to start looking is the Sale of Goods Acts 1893 & 1980. However, you must have a good understanding of the principles of contract law in order for you to be able to interpret those Acts with any degree of accuracy.

I said actual law because I want to know what it actually says in law, rather than some vague reference to the Sale of goods act and an opinion that the seller should compensate the buyer just because, which would be a likely response on the internet.

I'm surprised that you say there are a lot of variables though, I thought the core question was direct enough. Is a seller liable for costs accrued due to the failure of the part sold?

Bepolite

bucketybuck wrote: »

I'm surprised that you say there are a lot of variables though, I thought the core question was direct enough. Is a seller liable for costs accrued due to the failure of the part sold?

Yes, no, maybe, could you repeat the question? Hardiman J

In all seriousness - the answer is it depends on what the contract says.

bucketybuck

NoQuarter wrote: »

The relevant statute is the Defective Products Act, 1991. The law states that you can recover for any damage caused by a defective product except the damage to the defective product itself.

If you want to recover the cost of repairing your car, get a solicitor. Or do it yourself, but nobody can advise you on the steps to do it here.

Thankfully I have no car needing repair at the minute, this is just theoretical. I was asked the question earlier and I was curious enough to want to know more.

bucketybuck

Bepolite wrote: »

In practice most consumer contracts limit their liability to consequential loss.

I guess this is the question then, can consumer contracts limit their liability to consequential loss? Or is there a state law that will take precedent over any contractual agreement?

Bepolite

bucketybuck wrote: »

I guess this is the question then, can consumer contracts limit their liability to consequential loss? Or is there a state law that will take precedent over any contractual agreement?

It's in the first set of links I gave you. Look at the unfair contract terms regs. I can't give you a definitive answer as that would require a written judgment interpreting the statute and I don't know of one. Eve if there is one (there probably is) it probably isn't precisely on point as to get to written judgment stage the value of the contract would have to place it in the High Court (perhaps circuit court appeal to high court, clarification welcome!)

So it becomes, what do you think having read the statute? I think they don't have any liability, I think they shouldn't have any liability and in practice they have no liability. You're interpretation is as good as mine however! (Might not be as good as Hullaballoo's or NoQuarter's though )

NoQuarter

Liable to replace the widget under consumer contracts I would say but my interpretation was the bigger question is to the recovery of damages to the car in which case I would see the seller/manufacturer as liable under the 1991 Act.

I'd be happy to be on that side of a case but, of course, with judges you never know.

Bepolite

NoQuarter wrote: »

Liable to replace the widget under consumer contracts I would say but my interpretation was the bigger question is to the recovery of damages to the car in which case I would see the seller/manufacturer as liable under the 1991 Act.

I'd be happy to be on that side of a case but, of course, with judges you never know.

I injected that scenario, the OP is looking for the cost of hiring a car. I'm not sure the 1991 Act applies, but I'm open to correction.

Any legs to:

53(4) The measure of damages for breach of warranty is the estimated loss directly and naturally resulting, in the ordinary course of events, from the breach of warranty.

No idea how to cite that, it's 53 in the 1893 Act and 21 in the 1980 Act.

NoQuarter

Sorry, had completely missed the part about hiring the car.

hullaballoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

I said actual law because I want to know what it actually says in law

Ok, I understand what you mean now but that was not clear.

vague reference to the Sale of goods act and an opinion that the seller should compensate the buyer just because, which would be a likely response on the internet.

Well, there is good reason why answers on the Internet are limited to vague references to statute. Part of it is because most people on the Internet haven't got a clue. Some of them are decent enough to acknowledge that and will simply refer you to your starting point for researching the question.

Then there are professionals who might roughly know what the answer is but either aren't allowed to give actual advice (due to the charter) or are professionally bound not to freely provide professional services other than in certain specific situations.

The ones you really need to take with a pinch of salt are those who say things along the lines, "the answer [to your vague and unanswerable question] is exactly this: black and white." Those guys are really dangerous.

I'm surprised that you say there are a lot of variables though, I thought the core question was direct enough. Is a seller liable for costs accrued due to the failure of the part sold?

There are almost always variables when it comes to legal queries. I'm known by my friends and family to say, "it depends..." as a preface to an answer to any of their legal queries. That is because abstract legal questions can very often depend more on the information that is not given than the information that is.

In your example, you have not stated what your relationship to the buyer is. Nor have you set out in what capacity the buyer was buying or the seller selling. You haven't told us whether this was a verbally agreed contract or one that was written or both. You haven't told us whether the contract was subject to the seller's or the buyer's standard contract terms & conditions or both or neither. We don't know anything of the nature of the "widget" in question nor its supposed function, the propensity for it to destroy itself or other parts of the car etc.

I could go on (and on) but all of the above and more would be required for a proper answer to be given. Most of the posts in this thread are full of presuppositions that may or may not reflect the question you have (or, haven't) asked. It may be that because this is not a real-life situation, you haven't even considered much of the above yourself.

Technoprisoner

i think another variable to this is, was the part fitted by somebody who is qualified and competent to do so.

Going Forward

I'm just wondering would there be any difference if the defective part was shown to have caused a fatal accident?

NoQuarter

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm just wondering would there be any difference if the defective part was shown to have caused a fatal accident?

Then the provisions of the defective products act, general negligence and the civil liability act insofar as it relates to fatal injuries come into play. The cause of action rests with the dependants.

bucketybuck

Going Forward wrote: »

I'm just wondering would there be any difference if the defective part was shown to have caused a fatal accident?

It is part of the question that interests me. If there is a liability on the part of the seller, then where does that liability end?

Say I sell a throttle pedal which then stops working. It might be said that the seller should be liable for labour costs for replacing the pedal again. But what if the consumer missed a vital business meeting because his car broke down due to the faulty pedal, is the seller liable for the loss of earnings? If the seller is liable for any subsequent costs, then why not all subsequent costs?

NoQuarter

Reasonable foreseeability.

mitosis

My understanding is the seller of the part that fails only has a duty to the part, unless he fitted it also. If he supplied and fitted the part he could be liable for the consequence from failure..