Defects: agreed-upon qua­li­ty vs. requi­red use

Requi­re­ments for agree­ments as to qua­li­ty and requi­red uses.

The ruling was based on the fol­lo­wing case: a bird feed manu­fac­tu­rer purcha­sed a bird feed pack­ing machi­ne which was sup­po­sed to be capa­ble of pack­ing up to 40 bags of feed per minu­te (“up to 40 pcs/min”). But in fact, the machi­ne was only capa­ble of pack­ing 9 bags per minu­te. The buy­er of the machi­ne under­stan­d­a­b­ly rai­sed the ques­ti­on as to whe­ther war­ran­ty rights could be asser­ted against the sel­ler on the grounds that the machi­ne was defective.

Among the sel­ler’s prin­ci­pal con­trac­tu­al duties is deli­ve­ring the object to the buy­er free of mate­ri­al defects and defects in title. In accordance with sta­tu­to­ry inter­pre­ta­ti­ons of § 434 of the Civil Code, a defect exists if the object does not have the agreed-upon qua­li­ty, is unsui­ta­ble for the con­trac­tual­ly requi­red use or does not have the qua­li­ty which is cus­to­ma­ry for such objects or is unsui­ta­ble for their habi­tu­al use. In accordance with the cour­t’s estab­lished case law, an agree­ment as to qua­li­ty exists when­ever the sel­ler makes clear that it intends to assu­me a bin­ding gua­ran­tee for the pre­sence of a spe­ci­fic cha­rac­te­ristic which is important to the buy­er. The Fede­ral Supre­me Court did not reco­gni­ze such an intent in the state­ment that the machi­ne can pack “up to 40 pcs/min” becau­se the for­mu­la­ti­on “up to” does not gua­ran­tee a mini­mum quan­ti­ty, so that a machi­ne pack­ing a smal­ler num­ber of feed bags could also adhe­re to the terms of the con­tract accor­ding to this phrasing.

The Fede­ral Supre­me Court also ruled that a use is con­trac­tual­ly requi­red when­ever the con­trac­ting par­ties agree upon a spe­ci­fic type of use who­se importance to the buy­er is evi­dent. In this respect as well, the Fede­ral Supre­me Court found that the machi­ne was not defec­ti­ve, sin­ce it was sui­ta­ble for pack­ing bird feed.

No other defect was found in the machi­ne eit­her, after expert review, sin­ce the machi­ne was sui­ta­ble for the habi­tu­al use of a pack­ing machi­ne and pos­s­es­sed the qua­li­ty which is typi­cal of pack­ing machines.

Prac­ti­cal tip

The cru­cial ele­ment in war­ran­ty claims is the pre­sence of a defect of rele­van­ce for the con­trac­tu­al agree­ment. Accor­din­gly, par­ti­cu­lar atten­ti­on should be paid to the con­trac­tu­al agree­ment rela­ting to the qua­li­ty or use of the object, which does not neces­s­a­ri­ly requi­re ver­bal com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on. Ins­tead, agree­ments as to the con­trac­tual­ly owed qua­li­ty or the con­trac­tual­ly requi­red inten­ded use may come into being based on the buy­er’s expec­ta­ti­ons, if tho­se expec­ta­ti­ons are evi­dent to the sel­ler. Sel­lers should the­r­e­fo­re check to ensu­re that their pro­ducts meet the adver­ti­sed spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons, as well as draf­ting pre­cise con­trac­tu­al pro­vi­si­ons and set­ting them down in wri­ting, if only for evi­den­tia­ry purposes.


Stay up-to-date

We use your email address exclusively for sending our newsletter. You have the right to revoke your consent at any time with effect for the future. For further information, please refer to our privacy policy.