McCain Foods (GB) Ltd v Eco-Tec (Europe) Ltd [2011] EWHC 66 (TCC) 27/1/11

14 Feb 2011

Case Reference: McCain Foods (GB) Ltd v Eco-Tec (Europe) Ltd [2011] EWHC 66 (TCC) 27/1/11

The Facts

The Claimant (C) purchased a BGPur system (the System) from the Defendant (D) under an Equipment Purchase Agreement including a Specification.  The System was intended to remove Hydrogen Sulphide from biogas produced in C’s waste water treatment processes at one of its plants.  The clean biogas was intended to be used by C in the generation of electricity through a Combined Heat and Power plant to provide a source of power and electricity for the plant which C said entitled it as an Ofgem accredited generator of renewable electricity to obtain Renewables Obligation Certificates.  C alleged that the System proved impossible to commission successfully and it therefore treated D as being in repudiatory breach of contract and accepted that breach, or, rescinded the contract in consequence of which it sought recovery of monies paid under the contact and damages.  The claim was denied by D who counterclaimed for money outstanding under the contract.

The Issue

The court had to determine whether the System as designed and supplied was compliant with the specification and fit for its intended purpose and whether there was any breach of contract and/or misrepresentation if that was not the case.


Mr Recorder Acton Davis QC

Although the claim was, in part, based upon alleged representations and/or the existence of a collateral contract, the dispute could be decided on the express terms of the contract alone.  As a matter of contractual interpretation the risk for the inability to commission the System was that of D.  It was impossible to commission the System and D was thus in breach of contract.  Even if that were not the case, taken as a whole various e-mails and telephone conversations amounted to certain assurances as to the capabilities of the System.  D could not rely upon the entire agreement clause in the contract to defeat the misrepresentation claim based upon those assurances.  Damages would be awarded for breach of contract.


This content is provided free of charge for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole.


Please note that we do not give legal advice on individual cases which may relate to this content other than by way of formal instruction of a member of Gatehouse Chambers. However, if you have any other queries about this content please contact: