Legal Case Summary
Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 KB 854
Contracts – Sale of goods – Express warranty Breach of Warranty
Facts
The Plaintiffs were owners of a pier in Shanklin on the Isle of Wight. They entered into a contract with contractors to have the pier repaired and painted. Under the contract the plaintiff had the express right to alter the contract. The Defendant company director approached the Plaintiffs with a new painting product for the pier. After much persuasion, the Plaintiffs amended their contract with the Contractors to allow for the paint in the renovation. After several months, the paint flaked off and did not last. The Plaintiffs brought a claim for damages.
Issues
Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to bring a claim against the Defendant company, who was not party to the contract to undertake renovations.
Decision / Outcome:
The Defendant was found to be liable given he had provided an express warranty over the paint to the Plaintiffs, who in consideration of the warranty caused the contractor to buy the paint from the Defendant also and suffer the same damage, by reason of a breach of warranty. It was held that if the contract for the direct sale and purchase had been made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (with no involvement of a contractor), then the same warranty for the paint would be intended to exist and be implied. The Judge saw no reason as to why the same warranty should not be enforceable and extend between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff was entitled to recover damages.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd [1951] 2 KB 854 accurately reflects the decision and its legal significance. The case remains good law and continues to be cited as an established authority on collateral contracts, demonstrating how consideration can be provided by directing a third party to purchase goods and how this can support an enforceable warranty between parties who are not in a direct sale-and-purchase relationship. No subsequent legislation or judicial decision has overruled or materially qualified this principle. Readers should note, however, that the broader doctrine of privity of contract has since been significantly modified by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, which allows third parties to enforce contractual terms in certain circumstances. While this does not affect the correctness of the Shanklin Pier decision itself, the 1999 Act provides an alternative route in modern disputes that may reduce reliance on the collateral contract analysis used in this case.
