you might want to have a look at the sale of goods act. goods have to be fit for the purpose you may also want to look at whether the act or a similar act of statute would cover this incident for consequential loss.
just because your supplier or manufacturer may state they will not cover consequential loss if you or a lawyer knows of a statute that overides this and says they are, then what they have written wont count for nothing because no contract can override an act of parliament.
but also bear in mind the sale of goods act may only cover a consumer and not a tradesmen i have no idea. its about 20 years since i did my a-level in law
so get proper legal advice/consult a lawyer or legal forum.
Disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. Just as we advise posters to get qualified advice from a GSR, we should also recommend that they take qualified legal advice when they need it.
I assumed that the OP was a tradesman. If not, then various consumer protections apply which I won't comment on, since I lack the expertise.
However, if he is a tradesman, and bought the item in the course of business, then consumer protections don't apply, but contract law does.
The contractual chain is well established in law. You sue your supplier, who sues his supplier, and so on.
Unless the OP can persuade a court that he has conditions of purchase which over-ride the sellers terms and conditions of sale, the latter will prevail. The court will ask the seller to establish that he had taken reasonable steps to communicate these terms to the buyer. Usually printing terms on the back of invoices, on credit account application forms and in other sales literature will suffice. In the case of on-line retailers I understand that the situation is a bit more complicated and fluid, and precedent changes more rapidly. Again, in this field I lack the expertise to give a firm opinion.
If the seller is a business of any substance, they will have their terms and conditions reviewed and updated regularly to make sure that they are robust and compliant with current judicial interpretations. The days of unreasonable contract terms are long gone for reputable businesses.
Although we try to avoid such situations, once a business reaches a certain size and volume of transactions, it is hard to entirely avoid such claims. Whilst I can't be absolutely sure what a court would decide in a given case, we have not had our terms and conditions overturned by a court, despite several attempts. Neither am I aware of any other merchant having their "no consequential loss" clause overturned under normal circumstances. Were it to happen, it would be very big news in the merchant industry, with serious implications for us, our insurers, and frankly for the price that you guys pay for your materials.
On the other hand, we have brokered many goodwill settlements to the satisfaction of all parties, which is why I recommend this route.
