The High Court has ruled that a farmer’s contract claim over an agricultural machine was brought within the six-year limitation period, because the period began when the machine was delivered rather than when he agreed to buy it.
Ms Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 17 October 2014 on a preliminary issue raised by machinery seller Joe O’Toole & Sons Limited. The company argued that the farmer’s claim was statute barred because the contract had been made in April 2002 and proceedings began in July 2008.
The farmer, Paul Murphy, bought an Amazone four-metre one-pass sower for his agricultural contracting business. The purchase was financed through a hire purchase-type agreement with Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited. He alleged, among other things, that the machine was unsuitable for transport on public roads and that the seller had failed to supply machinery fit for its intended purpose.
The court heard evidence from Mr Murphy and John O’Toole, a director of the seller, about when the agreement was made. Mr O’Toole relied on contemporaneous business diary entries recording a quotation in March and a sale on 8 April 2002. The judge preferred his evidence, finding that the parties agreed the sale on 8 April for €51,930. She rejected Mr Murphy’s argument that the agreement depended on him obtaining finance, finding no express term making finance a condition of the sale.
The machine was delivered on 30 October 2002. The judge held that the contract was an agreement to sell goods for future delivery, and that any breach of the seller’s obligations concerning quality or fitness occurred when the goods were delivered. The claim was therefore within six years when proceedings were issued on 10 July 2008.
The judge reached a different conclusion on the negligent misrepresentation claim. For that claim to be actionable, any representation inducing the purchase had to precede the contract. Since the contract was made on 8 April 2002, the claim in negligent misrepresentation had accrued by then and was out of time when proceedings began. The judgment treated the contract claim as the central and primary claim.
The ruling decided the limitation issue only. It did not determine whether the machine was in fact unsuitable or whether the seller was liable for breach of contract. Judgment had already been entered by consent for the bank against Mr Murphy. The court concluded that Mr Murphy’s contract claim against the seller was not statute barred.