AEG (UK) ltd v Translift Monorail Ltd
Language: English Series: Construction Industry Law Letter ; [1996] CILL 1138(1)Publication details: 1996Subject(s): Summary: ORB 22 February 1996. A dispute centering around amplifiers fitted with a protection device (potentiometer) for use in a thrill ride. The plaintiff`s parent supplier set the device at a level which, on testing, activated the warning lights on the steepest section of the ride. The plaintiffs argued that had the potentiometers been set at a different level the equipment would have passed the tests and was not therefore unfit for use. It was concluded that although the product cuould provide the performance required, it would be against the manufacturer`s stated recommendations and thus the product was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | X3312 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 29717-1001 |
ORB 22 February 1996. A dispute centering around amplifiers fitted with a protection device (potentiometer) for use in a thrill ride. The plaintiff`s parent supplier set the device at a level which, on testing, activated the warning lights on the steepest section of the ride. The plaintiffs argued that had the potentiometers been set at a different level the equipment would have passed the tests and was not therefore unfit for use. It was concluded that although the product cuould provide the performance required, it would be against the manufacturer`s stated recommendations and thus the product was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold.