Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service v Fame Commercials Ltd

Goods supplied for a particular purpose must be reasonably fit for that purpose, including the ability to carry the specified payload lawfully and with any expressly or impliedly required functionality. Where a seller recommends increasing the plated weight, the contractual obligation may extend to fitness at the increased weight. A vehicle is not fit for purpose if its transmission cannot operate adequately at that weight, or if the required payload cannot be carried within the legal limit. Mitigation does not require a buyer to accept a redesign that fails to cure the essential defects. A modest deduction may be made for genuine betterment arising from replacement goods with materially greater capacity.

The claimant purchased three converted vehicles from the defendant for use as mobile fire stations and command support units. The vehicles were specified to carry equipment, water, fuel, a driver and a passenger, and were initially plated at 5.5 tonnes. They were later replated at 5.75 tonnes. The claimant alleged that the vehicles exceeded their lawful weight when properly loaded and that their clutches and transmissions repeatedly failed.

The claim sought repair costs and the cost of replacing the cab units with more powerful units. The central issues were whether the vehicles were of satisfactory quality and reasonably fit for their disclosed purposes under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, whether the increased plated weight affected the contractual obligation, and the proper measure of damages.

1. The claim succeeded. The vehicles were not of satisfactory quality and were not reasonably fit for their disclosed purposes under sections 14(2)–(2B) and 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

2. The disclosed purposes included carrying all specified equipment, a driver and a passenger, fuel, water and consumables, while operating legally within the plated weight. The requirement for spare capacity was also part of the relevant circumstances and purpose.

3. The vehicles’ transmission systems were inadequate at 5.75 tonnes. The repeated clutch failures, the expert evidence and the rejection of alternative explanations established that the vehicles could not be driven properly or adequately at that weight. The later replating, proposed by the defendant and accepted by the claimant, either impliedly varied the contract or generated a separate warranty requiring fitness at 5.75 tonnes.

4. The claimant was not required to mitigate by removing equipment, carrying a passenger in another vehicle or reworking the interior, because those measures did not cure the fundamental weight and transmission defects or provide the specified functionality.

5. The claimant recovered £10,268 for repairs and the reasonable cost of replacement cabs and conversion. A total deduction of £5,000 was made for the increased capacity and automatic transmission of the replacement cabs. The court also found a false representation and breach of warranty concerning the ability to carry the required payload within 5.5 tonnes, although it was unnecessary to determine additional misrepresentation remedies.