Supplier beware

When a customer buys a product from a supplier, they want to make sure that the product is right for them; they want to make an informed choice. They do not want the product to have drawbacks they are unaware of. Brokers that insure product suppliers need to ensure that the suppliers provide customers with sufficient information about the product; not doing so, as a recent case showed, can be an expensive mistake.

In the case of Vicar of Spalding v Chubb, the defendant supplied a number of fire extinguishers to a church, which were positioned around the building. Young children entered the church and deliberately discharged several extinguishers: they sprayed a dry powder extinguisher around the church so that particles of powder settled on virtually every surface. It mixed with water from other extinguishers to form an acidic paste, which then corroded and degraded many of the fabrics and other materials. The clean-up bill came to £300,000, which was paid for by the church's insurer, Ecclesiastical.

The vandals were clearly liable, however, they had no money and were not worth pursuing. Yet, Ecclesiastical discovered that it was well known within the fire industry that dry powder extinguishers could damage churches and other ancient buildings. Some heritage organisations have long refused to have them for this reason. When supplying the extinguishers, fire safety firm Chubb had not advised the church that a dry powder extinguisher could have this devastating effect on the building and its contents.

Ecclesiastical brought a subrogated claim against Chubb and, at trial, Chubb's witnesses admitted that they were aware of the potentially damaging effects of dry powder. The judge found that the company had been negligent, failing to allow the church to reach an informed decision about the various options available to it. Chubb was ordered to pay damages.

Dry powder extinguishers can form part of an effective fire safety strategy but there are alternatives for the instance described that do not present the same drawbacks. In this case, the supplier did not inform the customer of the range of options available and the factors to take into account in choosing the product.

The case is being appealed but it is an important confirmation that a product supplier can be obliged to allow customers to make informed decisions about which of the various models is suitable for them. The supplier must take account of the customer's circumstances.