_ltd_v_uttley_ingham__co_ltd.gif)
Parsons (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd
Encyclopedia
Parsons Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] QB 791 is an English contract law
case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage (for which the same, restrictive test as in tort applies) and economic losses (where a wider remoteness rule applies).
. They bought bulk food storage hoppers from Uttley Ingham, who installed them on the farm. The ventilator top was not unsealed as it should have been when it was installed. Parsons did not notice this (it was 28 feet high). The pignuts became mouldy. Parsons saw this, but thought it would do them no harm. 254 pigs died from E. coli
. Parsons sued Uttley Ingham for damages for loss of the pigs and trading profits.
English contract law
English contract law is a body of law regulating contracts in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth , and the United States...
case, concerning remoteness of damage. In it, the majority held that losses for breach of contract are recoverable if the type or kind of loss is a likely result of the breach of contract. Lord Denning MR, dissenting on the reasoning, held that a distinction should be drawn between losses for physical damage (for which the same, restrictive test as in tort applies) and economic losses (where a wider remoteness rule applies).
Facts
Parsons farmed pigsPIGS
PIGS is a four letter acronym that can stand for:* PIGS , Phosphatidylinositol glycan anchor biosynthesis, class S, a human gene* PIGS , the economies of Portugal, Italy , Greece and Spain...
. They bought bulk food storage hoppers from Uttley Ingham, who installed them on the farm. The ventilator top was not unsealed as it should have been when it was installed. Parsons did not notice this (it was 28 feet high). The pignuts became mouldy. Parsons saw this, but thought it would do them no harm. 254 pigs died from E. coli
Escherichia coli
Escherichia coli is a Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacterium that is commonly found in the lower intestine of warm-blooded organisms . Most E. coli strains are harmless, but some serotypes can cause serious food poisoning in humans, and are occasionally responsible for product recalls...
. Parsons sued Uttley Ingham for damages for loss of the pigs and trading profits.
Judgment
The Court of Appeal all held that the loss was not too remote. But the majority, Scarman LJ and Orr LJ held that the type of loss rather than the actual loss is relevant when applying the contract remoteness test. Scarman LJ agreed that it would be absurd if the test generally was different in contract or tort – just because of the cause of action. Lord Denning MR (dissenting on the reasoning) would have held that a distinction should be drawn in contract between loss of profit and physical damage. He relied on Hart and Honore to say that a distinction between economic loss and physical damage is ‘emerging’ in contract, like in tort. For economic losses, it should have been foreseen as a ‘serious possibility’. For physical damage, there should be compensation if there is only a ‘slight possibility’.See also
- Hadley v Baxendale
- Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries LtdVictoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries LtdVictoria Laundry Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1949] 2 KB 528 is an English contract law case on the remoteness of damage principle.-Facts:...
[1948] 2 KB 528 - Koufos v Czarnikow Ltd or The Heron II [1969] 1 AC 350
- South Australia Asset Management Co v York Montague [1996] 3 All ER 365
- The Achilleas [2008] UKHL 48