*Full case details VAI Industries (UK) Limited vs Bostock & Bramley & Ors  EWCA Civ 1069, 23 July 2003, Court of Appeal
There was an implied term and a presumed intention on the part of both parties that if replacement equipment was provided, then those replacements would be free from defects from design and would conform to specification. The judge was therefore wrong to strike out the claim. The cause of action arose when the replacement parts were delivered or fitted and that date was within the limitation period. If a new contract arose in respect of the replacement parts then that would certainly not be statute barred. The defendant's allegation that their assistance in repairing was only a gesture of good will and they did not intend to be bound by contract was quite simply fanciful. VAI was therefore allowed to reinstate its claim.
For further information, call Tony Francis or Nicholas Gould on 0207 956 9354
This is an interesting case because it demonstrates that in some circumstances it will be possible to argue that the claim is not time barred because the time runs from the date on which the replacement works were carried out. It would of course be quite unfortunate if time ran from the original breach such that the claimant needed to bring legal proceedings in order to preserve time, when the supplier or installer was attempting to carry out remedial works in an attempt to avoid legal proceedings.