How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ash Your Own Question
Ash, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 10916
Experience:  Solicitor with 5+ years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
Ash is online now

FAO Alex Watts with regards ***** ***** clause: MERCHANTABLE

Resolved Question:

FAO Alex Watts
with regards ***** ***** clause:
The Seller on acceptance of this order warrants to the Company that the goods supplied are of merchantable quality and agree to indemnify and keep indemnified the Company against all actions, costs and claims howsoever arising as a result of a breach of this warranty, notwithstanding that any defect in the goods should under normal circumstances be discernible on inspection by the Company.
This bit is worrying me:
(..agree to indemnify and keep indemnified the Company against all actions, costs and claims howsoever arising as a result of a breach of this warranty..)
The 'goods' materials and installation services have been delivered and I believe can be argued to be technically compliant as industry standard testing has been completed and the works have been and still remain in use from the date the installations was commissioned and handed-over. After this handover the customer raised the 'aesthetic' issues which I agree with, some elements are not pleasing to the eye and I have agreed to rectify these points, obviously at no cost to the customer. So I believe that the 'goods' are of merchantable quality albeit some bits are not pretty and do not meet the customer's requirements form the installation perspective.
QUE. 1. Do I have a fair argument based on my statement above?
QUE.2. ... or will the customer be able to argue that the fact there is a cosmetic issue means that the goods include 'installation' which is not satisfactory and therefore not of merchantable quality and therefore claim all sorts of associated management time and other expenses / costs that he can argue he has incurred as a result of the goods not being of merchantable quality?
Can you help me with these two questions please?
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Law
Expert:  Ash replied 2 years ago.
Yes I agree with you. If they are compliant as industry standard then I think you have a fair argument. The customer can only claim not of merchantable quality for something substantial. If cosmetic was a term of the contract then it could be rejected on that basis, but if not then unless it's substantial then no.
Can I clarify anything for you about this today please?
Ash and other Law Specialists are ready to help you