Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    Case of Moot 2

    Uploaded by

    Mohammad Nashashibi
    Grabbit and Runn Ltd hired Webfix Ltd to design a new website to promote their estate agent business. After paying Webfix £10,000, the website software corrupted all property photos, causing Grabbit and Runn to lose £15,000 in commissions from failed sales. Grabbit and Runn sued Webfix for breach of contract to recover the loss. The county court found Webfix liable because the faulty software breached statutory obligations, and Grabbit and Runn were deemed consumers protected from liability limitations. Webfix appeals, arguing the loss was unforeseeable, or alternatively that Grabbit and Runn should not be considered consumers or the liability limitation was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case of Moot 2

    Uploaded by

    Mohammad Nashashibi
    100 views2 pages
    Grabbit and Runn Ltd hired Webfix Ltd to design a new website to promote their estate agent business. After paying Webfix £10,000, the website software corrupted all property photos, causing Grabbit and Runn to lose £15,000 in commissions from failed sales. Grabbit and Runn sued Webfix for breach of contract to recover the loss. The county court found Webfix liable because the faulty software breached statutory obligations, and Grabbit and Runn were deemed consumers protected from liability limitations. Webfix appeals, arguing the loss was unforeseeable, or alternatively that Grabbit and Runn should not be considered consumers or the liability limitation was reasonable.

    Original Title

    case of moot 2

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Grabbit and Runn Ltd hired Webfix Ltd to design a new website to promote their estate agent business. After paying Webfix £10,000, the website software corrupted all property photos, causing Grabbit and Runn to lose £15,000 in commissions from failed sales. Grabbit and Runn sued Webfix for breach of contract to recover the loss. The county court found Webfix liable because the faulty software breached statutory obligations, and Grabbit and Runn were deemed consumers protected from liability limitations. Webfix appeals, arguing the loss was unforeseeable, or alternatively that Grabbit and Runn should not be considered consumers or the liability limitation was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views2 pages

    Case of Moot 2

    Uploaded by

    Mohammad Nashashibi
    Grabbit and Runn Ltd hired Webfix Ltd to design a new website to promote their estate agent business. After paying Webfix £10,000, the website software corrupted all property photos, causing Grabbit and Runn to lose £15,000 in commissions from failed sales. Grabbit and Runn sued Webfix for breach of contract to recover the loss. The county court found Webfix liable because the faulty software breached statutory obligations, and Grabbit and Runn were deemed consumers protected from liability limitations. Webfix appeals, arguing the loss was unforeseeable, or alternatively that Grabbit and Runn should not be considered consumers or the liability limitation was reasonable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Grabbit and Runn Ltd

    Webfix Ltd

    Grabbit and Runn are estate agents. They wanted to increase their business and raise their market
    profile, so they decided to invest in a new website for use in promoting the houses and other
    properties they sold. They paid Webfix, a website design company, to re-design their existing
    website according to a detailed specification, for a total cost of £10,000. Part of the package
    included software that would enable Grabbit and Run to upload photos to the website and edit
    them online.

    Two months after the work was completed and Webfix had been paid, Grabbit and Runn put
    promotional literature for the properties they were attempting to sell on the new website. All
    went well until one day when all the images (photos of the houses etc for sale) stored on the
    website suddenly became corrupted. The website hosts told them the photos were irretrievable
    and the properties would all have to be re-photographed. Grabbit and Runn had to retake
    approximately 100 photographs that were lost, and in the meantime had no pictures of the
    properties they were selling on the website. Because of this, they failed to make two property
    sales, as a result of which they lost a total of £15,000 commission (the sales were arranged by
    other agents with purchasers who had been making enquiries with Grabbit and Runn until the
    website went down).

    It was established that the corruption of the digital image files was caused by a fault in the
    software that was designed and supplied by Webfix. Webfix accept liability for the cost of
    replacing the faulty software, but deny liability for the loss of commission, relying on Clause 2
    of the contract that was signed by Grabbit and Runn:

    "The Customer agrees that Webfix’s liability in the event of any goods (including software) or
    service being defective shall be limited to replacement cost and that under no circumstances will
    Webfix be liable for any consequential loss whatsoever."

    Grabbit and Runn sue Webfix for breach of contract in order to recover the lost commission. In
    the County Court, it was held:

    1) Webfix were clearly in breach of s4(2) Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 in that the
    software provided with their design service was not of satisfactory quality. The £15,000 lost
    commission was a result of this breach and was not too remote, falling within the remit of
    foreseeable damage according to the principle in Hadley v Baxendale, thus Webfix are liable for
    the £15,000 unless clause 2 of the contract is deemed to exempt them from liability on this
    occasion.

    2) Clause 2 was incorporated into Grabbit and Runn’s contract with Webfix by virtue of being
    signed, but could not be relied on to limit liability for the breach of s4(2) SGSA because a) under
    UCTA 1977 s7(2) it is not possible to limit liability for breach of s4 SGSA where someone deals
    as consumer, and b) Grabbit and Runn on this occasion dealt as consumer within the definition
    of s12 UCTA because of the decision of the Court of Appeal in R&B Customs Brokers v United
    Dominions Trust.

    Webfix appeals against this decision on the following grounds:

    1) That the damage being claimed for was in fact too remote, as it falls outside of the ordinary
    Hadley v Baxendale principles and is more properly construed as being damage of the type
    envisaged in Victoria Laundries v Newman, thus Grabbit and Runn has no claim and the
    application of Clause 2 is immaterial.

    2) If the court finds in the alternative that the damage was foreseeable;

    i) on the true construction of s12 UCTA, Grabbit and Runn should not be treated as dealing as
    consumer, and

    ii) if Grabbit and Runn did not deal as consumer, then a) under s7(3) UCTA the clause is subject
    to the requirement of reasonableness, and b) the clause is reasonable.

    Please note: The contract between Grabbit and Runn Ltd and Webfix Ltd was concluded
    before 1 October 2015 when the Consumer Rights Act 2015 entered into force.

    You might also like