UK Court Finds Company Liable For Software Defects

normsky writes "A software company's stipulation that it couldn't be held accountable for the poor performance of its software was unfair and could not be enforced, the High Court has said. 'Pursuant to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, a term is to be implied into the contract that Entirety would be fit for the purpose for which it was bought, namely that the system would increase revenue and occupancy levels and would allow quicker check-in and check-out, including accurately processing groups and making changes to group reservations while preserving the accuracy of the system. I am satisfied that Entirety was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold,' his Honor Judge Toulmin wrote."

Comments

Not atypical of the UK and the EU...

[Kr3m3Puff]

This case isn't really atypical of the UK and the EU. Being an American ex-pat who works and lives in the UK, I am always amazed to see how many US companies don't understand the implied warranty and fitness for purpose concepts in UK and EU law. The terms of service of a lot of software don't mean anything, it truly is about if the seller and the consumer are fair and equitable with each other and it is very hard for the seller to be able to constrain the rights of the consumer. Take for example BSkyB for EDS where the contract cap was broken because EDS was deceitful in the sales process about the timelines it would take to implement a solution.

Re:Yay! finally some accountability for all those

[AK Marc]

And don't go pulling the "put some pseudo-legalese magic incantation in my code saying its not fit for even the reasonably-implied purpose and all the trouble will magically go away" card because that won't work in the exact high-liability suits(i.e. someone dies, the stock market crashes) it intended to defend the developer against, in the real world.

Just because you don't want it applied isn't enough. The "Sale of Goods" act doesn't cover free things. "Fit for purpose" requires a stated purpose. And this wasn't about bugs, it was about software that didn't come close to doing what the salesmen asserted it did. It wasn't just a big, but it was a piece of software that didn't really work.

This is a great ruling for the people. Someone lies to sell shit that doesn't work, and they get sued. "It's a bug" isn't a defense of fraud. That's all this means, and your "I refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with me using arguments I don't have answers for" comments can't change the reality. This doesn't affect OSS, and it doesn't affect people that ship products that actually work (even if they have bugs). The software in question didn't do what it was sold to do, and so they should be sued and should lose. *Everyone* should like this decision except people who engage in fraud.

Re:Yay! finally some accountability for all those

[Chris Newton]

Interestingly, the sale of goods act would cover open source software - even if the price was zero.

I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see why. From the Sale of Goods Act 1979, 2(1):

A contract of sale of goods is a contract by which the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.

I doubt £0 would constitute "consideration" in this context.

As far as I can see, the most significant consequences of this ruling are that:

• software can be covered by consumer protection legislation;
• those selling software cannot escape responsibility for the related obligations just by putting small print in a contract of adhesion; and
• liability can exceed the original cost of the software where the damages are greater.

This is particularly interesting because if EULAs do have any legal standing at all here, then they are probably a contract of adhesion based on technicalities about copyright.

I imagine some lawyers are running around looking nervous at quite a few big software companies this morning. All those DRM systems, for example, just became a bit of a liability: if I install a game and it simply doesn't work, then all those arguments about not returning opened products for a refund just became untenable. (Take note, Ubisoft and games shops.) And if you play silly wotsits on someone's computer to try to install your software's copy protection system and you get it wrong and damage their system, $DEITY help you, because it looks like the courts aren't going to. (Take note Sony, Adobe, et al.)

Of course, we'd have to see the complete context before reading too much into this case, because it sounds like the sale was made following significant contact between the parties and specific claims by the sellers, which might or might not still be the case with typical off-the-shelf or preinstalled software.