Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK |
| Judgment Date | 23 February 2001 |
| Neutral Citation | [2001] EWCA Civ 317 |
| Docket Number | Case No: QBENF/2000/3077/A1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 23 February 2001 |
[2001] EWCA Civ 317
Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Lord Justice Chadwick and
Mr Justice Buckley
Case No: QBENF/2000/3077/A1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT
TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT
His Honour Judge Thornton QC
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand,
London, WC2A 2LL
`Mr Mark Raeside (instructed by Messrs DLA of Birmingham for the Appellant)
Mr Peter Irvin (instructed by Messrs Needleman Treon of London for the Respondent)
This is an appeal against part of an order made on 27 July 2000 by His Honour Judge Thornton QC on the hearing of preliminary issues in proceedings brought in the Technology and Construction Court. The appeal is brought with the permission of this Court (Lord Justice Simon Brown) granted on 27 October 2000.
The background facts
The claimant, Watford Electronics Limited (to which I shall refer as "Watford"), is a family owned business engaged in the sale of computer products, principally by mail order. It has particular expertise in the sale or supply of personal computers for educational, commercial and personal use. By 1992 the monthly turnover from its business was £1.5 million or thereabouts, derived from sales of some 8,000 catalogue items.
In April 1992 Watford moved to new premises in Luton. It identified a need for an integrated software system which would enable it to exercise greater control over its expanding business; in particular, over mail order sales, warehouse stock and accounts. For that purpose it entered into discussions with the defendant, Sanderson CFL Limited ("Sanderson"), a subsidiary of Sanderson Group Plc. Sanderson was engaged in the supply of software products; including, in particular, a product known as "Mailbrain". Mailbrain was a marketing package for use in connection with mail order marketing; but which could be used in conjunction with another product, "Genasys", for maintaining sales, purchase and nominal ledgers and for other accounting functions.
The contractual documents
Negotiations took place between Mr Shiraz Jessa, then the technical director of Watford, and Mr Paul Broderick, the sales manager at Sanderson with responsibility for Mailbrain. Those negotiations, extending over the summer of 1992, led the parties to enter into three contractual documents. Those documents, under a common reference 1078–92, were: (i) a sales contract for the supply by Sanderson of eight items of equipment at a total price of £15,508; (ii) a software licence in respect of Mailbrain and Genasys products, at an initial licence fee of £70,260 and, thereafter, at an annual licence fee of £14,231; and (iii) a software modification licence, covering certain 'bespoke' modifications set out in a letter of 29 September 1992 and training, at an initial licence fee of £3,250. The software was for use with IBM compatible hardware, to be provided, I think, by Watford.
Each of those three documents was on a single sheet of paper. On the face of the document there was the date, 9 October 1992, a description of the equipment to be supplied or the product to be licensed (as the case might be) and the words "This contract is subject to the Terms and Conditions set out overleaf." Each document was signed, on the face, by Mr Jessa on behalf of "the Customer" and by Mr Arlidge, then the managing director of Sanderson, on behalf of "the Company". The reverse of each document contains printed terms and conditions.
The "Terms and Conditions of Sale", which appear on the reverse of the sales contract, contain an 'entire agreement' clause in these terms:
"14
Entire Agreement
The parties agree that these terms and conditions (together with any other terms and conditions expressly incorporated in the Contract) represent the entire agreement between the parties relating to the sale and purchase of the Equipment and that no statement or representations made by either party have been relied upon by the other in agreeing to enter into the Contract."
Clause 7 of the "Terms and Conditions of Sale" is in these terms, so far as material:
"7. Warranty and Limit of Liability"
7.1
The Company warrants that the Equipment will perform in accordance with its specification …"
7.2
The Company and the Customer agree to indemnify each other against any liability arising in respect of injury (including death) to any person or loss or damage to any property which results from the act, default or negligence of itself, its employees, agents or subcontractors."
7.3
Neither the Company nor the Customer shall be liable to the other for any claims for indirect or consequential losses whether arising from negligence or otherwise. In no event shall the Company's liability under the Contract exceed the price paid by the Customer to the Company for the Equipment connected with any claim."
The "Terms and Conditions of Software Licence" which appear on the reverse of the software licence and the software modification licence contain similar provisions at clause 15 (Entire Agreement) and clause 10 (Warranty and Limit of Liability). In particular, clause 10.6 of the Terms and Conditions of Software Licence is in the same terms (save for the substitution of "Software" for "Equipment") as clause 7.3 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale.
The sales contract, the software licence and the software modification licence are each subject to a contemporaneous addendum to clause 7.3 or clause 10.6 (as the case may be) of the Terms and Conditions. The addendum to clause 7.3 of the Terms and Conditions of Sale is in these terms:
"In addition to Clause 7.3, Sanderson CFL Ltd commit to their best endeavours in allocating appropriate resources to the project to minimise any losses that may arise from the Contract."
The addenda to Clauses 10.6 of the Terms and Conditions of Software Licence are to the same effect.
The system fails to perform
The system purchased under the October 1992 contracts was brought into operation in or about February 1993. It did not perform satisfactorily. A number of meetings and visits by Sanderson representatives took place in order to identify the problems. A report was commissioned from Bull Information Systems Ltd which recommended upgrading the PC server to a Bull DPX/20. This led to two further documents, each dated 20 August 1993. One was a sales contract for the supply of the Bull mini-computer, with peripherals, at a price of £28,211. The other was a software licence, for which the price was £2,176. The August 1993 documents contained the same terms and conditions as the October 1992 documents.
The total paid by Watford to Sanderson for equipment and in licence fees between 1992 and 1996 amounted to £104,596. The system continued to give rise to problems and, in 1996, it was replaced by a new system from a different supplier. Watford sought redress from Sanderson.
These proceedings
These proceedings were commenced in 1998. The claim is put in three ways. First, it is said that Watford was induced to sign the October 1992 documents as the result of representations made by Sanderson (including, but not limited to, representations made in the Mailbrain product brochure) which were false. Second, it is said that Sanderson was in breach of terms which were to be implied in both the October 1992 documents and the August 1993 documents. These included (i) warranties in the same terms as the pre-contract representations, (ii) a term that the computer system recommended by Sanderson would be of merchantable quality and reasonable fit for the purposes for which it was supplied, (iii) a term that Sanderson would use the skill and care reasonably to be expected of experts in the performance of the contact, and (iv) a term that Sanderson would remedy any defect which became apparent within a reasonable time so as to allow Watford's business to continue without interruption. Third, it is said that Sanderson, as an expert knowing that Watford would rely upon its expertise, owed a common law duty of care to use skill and care in making its recommendations and in performing the contract induced by those recommendations. There follow allegations of the breach of the alleged contractual duties and of the alleged negligence. Put shortly, it is said that the system recommended was not capable of performing satisfactorily; that it was delivered and installed late; that it never did perform satisfactorily; and that Sanderson failed to meet Watford's complaints or to remedy the defects within a reasonable time.
The claim for damages for breach of contract is put under three heads: (i) a claim for loss of profits – said to be measured by a "depression of turnover" – in the amount of £4,402,694; (ii) a claim for damages arising from the increased cost of working that is to say, from the failure to make savings in staff time and the additional costs incurred in attempting to operate the defective system – in the amount of £996,063; and (iii) a claim for the cost of mitigating the continuing losses equal to the cost of acquiring and installing alternative software in 1996, in the amount of £119,204. The whole amount of the contractual claim is a little over £5.5 million. There is an alternative claim under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (alternatively for negligent mis-statement). The amounts claimed for misrepresentation and negligence are (i) the £104,596 paid to Sanderson for the equipment and the licence fees, and (ii) the amount of the increased costs of working (£996,063).
In a defence served in May 1999, Sanderson relied (amongst...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Österreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
...v McGarrigan (which proceeded on Lowe v Lombank lines) and Chadwick LJ gave the leading judgment in Grimstead and Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317. The Court must necessarily have had the Lowe v Lombank type of estoppel in mind; but it is less clear to what ex......
-
Microlise Ltd v James Kemball Ltd
...capable of being able to make contracts of their choosing and expect to be bound by their terms.” 123 Similarly, in Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317, Chadwick LJ said at [55] (emphasis added): “ Where experienced businessmen representing substantial companies......
-
Natixis S.A. v Marex Financial
...of broadly equal bargaining power, considerations of party autonomy and freedom of contract remain potent. Thus, in Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317; [2001] BLR 143; [2001] I All ER (Comm) 696, Chadwick LJ said this: “55. Where experienced businessmen represe......
-
Alan Bates and Others v Post Office Ltd
...parties of broadly equal bargaining power, considerations of party autonomy and freedom of contract remain potent. Thus, in Watford Electronics v Sanderson [2001] EWCA Civ 317; [2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696, Chadwick LJ said this: “55. Where experienced businessmen representing substantial c......
-
UCTA Sounds the Retreat - Further Developments on Limitation of Liability
...commercial parties and supports the approach taken by the Courts in recent cases such as Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd. [2001 EWCA] Civ 317 and Motours Ltd v Eurobell (West Kent) Ltd. [2003] All ER (D) 165 (Jan) both of which dealt with the level of the liability 1 See clause ......
-
IFI Update London, August/Octber 2008 - Part 1
...and had been held to be effective in the Peekay case and in other cases such as Watford Electronics Ltd v. Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317, [2001] 1 All ER 696. Her Ladyship dismissed an argument based on what was said by Diplock J (sitting in the Court of Appeal) in Lowe v. Lombark L......
-
Some Differences In Law And Practice Between U.K. And U.S. Stock Purchase Agreements
...seeking to rely on the nonreliance statement. The Court of Appeal upheld this approach in Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317. U.S. states are split on whether pre-contractual representations can form the basis of a claim in tort for misrepresentation in circumst......
-
Tort, Insurance and Ideology: Further Thoughts
...ss 3,5 and 11, and sched 2.67 RW Green Ltd vCade Brothers Farms [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 602; Watford Electronics Ltd vSandersonCFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317,[2001] 1 All ER (Comm) 696; Macquarie International InvestmentsLtd vGlencore (UK) Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 697; [2010] 1 CLC 1035.68 Monarch Air......
-
ASSESSING THE REASONABLENESS OF EXCEPTION CLAUSES
...272; Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd; Malvern Fishing Co Ltd v Ailsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 964. 2 [2001] EWCA Civ 317. 3 Examples of Singapore cases include Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2005] 4 SLR(R) 417; Hakko Products Pte Ltd v Dan......
-
Case Note
...2 See, eg, Grimstead & Son Ltd v McGarrigan [1999] EWCA Civ 3029; 1999 WL 85282 at p 16; Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 317 at [39], [40]; and Peart Stevenson Associates Ltd v Holland [2008] EWHC 1868 (QB) HQ07X03235 (transcript) at [40]; and Trident Turboprop (......
-
Contract Law
...the courts ought to look only at the literal wording of the particular clause (see, eg, Watford Electronics Ltd v Sanderson CFL Ltd[2001] EWCA Civ 317), or whether it should consider the substance and effect of the clause (see, eg, Witter Ltd v TPB Industries[1996] 2 All ER 573). The Court ......