In this case, a dealer supplied a defective trailer coupling to a customer who went on using it, after it was obviously broken, until there was an accident. It was held that the dealer was not liable as the accident had been caused by the customer's use of the coupling when he knew that it was broken, and not by the fact that it was defective when sold.
Answer
Lambert v Lewis [1982] AC 255
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
In this case, a dealer supplied a defective trailer coupling to a customer who went on using it, after it was obviously broken, until there was an accident. It was held that the dealer was not liable as the accident had been caused by the customer's use of the coupling when he knew that it was broken, and not by the fact that it was defective when sold.
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #remedies
Question
In this case, a dealer supplied a defective trailer coupling to a customer who went on using it, after it was obviously broken, until there was an accident. It was held that the dealer was not liable as the accident had been caused by the customer's use of the coupling when he knew that it was broken, and not by the fact that it was defective when sold.
Answer
Lambert v Lewis [1982] AC 255
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Lambert v Lewis [1982] AC 255, the intervening act was not deemed 'likely to happen' and so broke the chain of causation. In this case, a dealer supplied a defective trailer coupling to a customer who went on usin
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.