We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
11 May 2021
Buyers wishing to make a claim under contractual warranty provisions must comply with those provisions to the letter; sufficient and timely information is key. In Arani v Cordic Group,(1) the buyer gave inadequate notice of its contractual warranty claim and could not bring a misrepresentation claim based on the warranties.
Warranties encourage sellers to disclose known issues in the due diligence process and provide buyers with a remedy if certain facts on which they have based their investment decision turn out to be untrue. However, claims arising from warranties can be brought only in the circumstances prescribed in the contract.
The buyer purchased a company which provided fleet management solutions for taxi and courier businesses. It claimed that the seller had breached various warranties in the sale and purchase agreement (SPA). In particular, the target company had been using an address database in breach of a single-user licence.
The SPA allowed the seller to release funds from the retention account unless the buyer provided notification of a warranty claim, including full particulars, within 16 months of completion. The buyer notified, reserving its rights and indicating that it was possible that a warranty claim might be brought. The buyer claimed that this notice, and its claim for misrepresentation for breach of the same warranties, prevented the seller from releasing the retention funds.
The commercial purpose of notification requirements is to give the seller the opportunity to make financial provision for any warranty claims and, if the requirements are not followed, the seller is not liable. In construing a notice, the court should ask how a reasonable recipient with knowledge of the context in which it was sent would have understood it. While minor defects will not invalidate notices if the recipient would have understood the message being conveyed,(2) notices must comply with formal contractual requirements in relation to timing, form and service.
The court decided that the buyer's notice did not comply with the SPA requirements because the notification did not include full particulars of the claim or specify that a claim was being made; it referred only to the possibility of such a claim. The notice was also sent one day late, over 16 months after completion. The judge concluded that the notice was an unsuccessful "last minute tactic" to prevent the release of funds.
The buyer argued that the notification requirements did not apply to its claim for misrepresentation arising from the alleged breach of the warranties and that its misrepresentation claim also prohibited the release of funds. However, the court decided that only validly notified contractual warranty claims could prevent the release of retention funds and that misrepresentation claims could not be set off against those funds.
The court also confirmed that, in any event, warranties cannot amount to representations and instead they are a contractual promise which provides buyers with a particular (contractual) remedy. Previous authorities which had suggested that warranties in transaction documents could provide a basis for a claim in misrepresentation should not be followed. As such, if a buyer wishes to bring a claim for misrepresentation, it must identify specific pre-contractual representations which are not captured by entire agreement or non-reliance clauses.
The case is a salutary reminder of the importance of complying with contractual warranty provisions and the difficulties of bringing a misrepresentation claim where warranties have superseded any pre-contractual discussions. As well as providing sufficient information about their claim, buyers should also be aware that there are other hurdles to bringing successful claims and it is recommended that buyers:
For further information on this topic please contact Emma West or Simon Hart at RPC by telephone (+44 20 3060 6000) or email (email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org). The RPC website can be accessed at www.rpc.co.uk.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.