Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 17 SEPTEMBER 2012

Individual Components Are Goods But Not Bespoke System As A Whole

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP
Contributor
Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

Charles Russell Speechlys is an international law firm with a focus on private capital, at the...

View firm profile
Explore more from Charles Russell Speechlys LLP

ADT supplied, for £9,000, a fire suppression system for Trebor’s popcorn plant (Trebor is a subsidiary of Cadburys).

United KingdomConsumer Protection

Trebor Bassett Holdings Ltd & Cadbury UK Partnership v ADT Fire & Security plc [2012] EWCA Civ 1158

ADT supplied, for £9,000, a fire suppression system for Trebor's popcorn plant (Trebor is a subsidiary of Cadburys). A fire developed in a hopper, ADT's system did not put it out, the fire spread and the entire manufacturing plant, including Cadbury's adjacent chocolate confectionary production lines, dissolved into a sticky mess and was destroyed. Trebor/Cadburys sued in contract and tort. The High Court found that the design of the system was negligent, in that ADT had failed to use reasonable care and skill in the design. However, the Judge also found that Cadburys was negligent, indeed "woefully at fault" and "even reckless" in its failure to segregate the oil pop production area from the rest of the building and to install sprinklers. Since the contractual duty of ADT was co-extensive with its tortious duty, the Judge applied Section 1 of the Law

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from