The Bottom Line
- Burden of Proof is on the Buyer: If you allege a supplier’s product is defective, you must provide conclusive evidence. The failure of the end-product is not, by itself, sufficient proof against the material supplier.
- Court-Appointed Experts are Decisive: A judge will heavily rely on the findings of an independent, court-appointed expert. Challenging an expert’s methodology after their report is issued is an uphill battle and unlikely to succeed.
- Isolate the Cause of Failure: Suppliers are not liable for downstream application errors. This ruling protects manufacturers and distributors from liability when their products are not proven to be the root cause of a problem.
The Details
In a recent B2B dispute, a Dutch flooring installation company, Knulst Vloeren, sued its materials supplier, Romar-Voss Floor Systems. Knulst claimed that the resin and other components supplied by Romar-Voss for installing cast floors in six homes were defective, leading to faulty installations. The company sought damages, arguing that the supplier had breached its sales agreement by providing a product unfit for its intended purpose. This case highlights a common and costly challenge: determining liability in a supply chain when an end-product fails.
The court found itself unable to determine the cause of the flooring issues based on the initial evidence presented by the parties. To break the deadlock, it appointed an independent expert from a technical assessment agency (TBA) to investigate the matter. The expert’s role was to analyze the materials and circumstances to determine if the products supplied by Romar-Voss were indeed defective. After a thorough investigation, the expert concluded that it could not be stated or demonstrated that the supplier’s products were faulty.
This expert conclusion proved to be the turning point. Knulst attempted to have the report thrown out, arguing the expert used an incorrect investigation method and failed to properly consider alternative causes. The court firmly rejected these arguments, stating that an appointed expert has the discretion to determine the appropriate methodology and that any objections should have been raised much earlier. Adopting the expert’s findings as its own, the court ruled that since no product defect could be proven, there was no breach of contract by the supplier, Romar-Voss. Consequently, all of Knulst’s claims were dismissed, and it was ordered to cover the supplier’s legal costs.
Source
Rechtbank Limburg
