My Law Tutor

Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933

March 05, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son:

In 1933, the House of Lords delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son, shaping the landscape of contract law regarding product specifications and acceptance. The core issue revolved around whether a buyer could reject contracted goods that technically deviated from agreed-upon specifications, even if they remained fit for their intended purpose.

Facts of the Case

Arcos Ltd, a British company, entered a contract with Norwegian firm Ronaasen to purchase timber staves for constructing cement barrels. The contract meticulously specified the staves’ thickness to the half-inch. Upon delivery, a significant portion of the staves exceeded the specified thickness, though deemed commercially usable for barrel production. Despite this, Arcos rejected the entire shipment, citing the discrepancy.

Legal Issue

The case hinged on the legal interpretation of contractual terms and acceptable performance:

  • Did the precise thickness constitute a vital term, allowing rejection for even minor deviations?
  • Or could “commercial usability” supersede technical non-compliance, requiring acceptance of functionally equivalent goods?

Contractual Interpretation and Performance

The court delved into the contract’s meaning:

  • Was the thickness specification an absolute requirement or a guideline with some tolerance?
  • The contract lacked explicit clauses regarding tolerances or deviations, leaving space for interpretation.
  • Legal principles like “strict liability” and “substantial performance” were considered, raising questions of exact adherence versus reasonable fulfillment.

The “commercial usability” concept came into play:

  • While the staves exceeded the specified size, their functionality for barrel production remained intact.
  • The question arose: Should mere technical non-compliance outweigh the goods’ actual usability?

Arguments of the Parties

  • Arcos:
    • Upheld their right to reject based on the clear breach of contract, asserting adherence to specific terms supersedes commercial considerations.
    • They argued that accepting deviations sets a dangerous precedent, undermining the sanctity of contractual agreements.
  • Ronaasen:
    • Contended the size difference was minor and inconsequential, not impacting the staves’ core function.
    • They emphasized the commercially usable nature of the goods, arguing against unnecessary rejection and potential economic hardship.

Judgment and Rationale

The House of Lords sided with Ronaasen, upholding the goods’ acceptance:

  • They deemed the thickness specification not a condition precedent but a warranty, allowing minor deviations without rejecting the entire shipment.
  • The court emphasized the goods’ functionality, recognizing “commercial usability” as a relevant factor when assessing deviations.
  • While acknowledging the importance of contractual terms, they balanced it with practicality, avoiding unnecessary economic disruption due to minor technical non-compliance.

Impact of the Case

Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son significantly impacted contract law:

  • It established a nuanced approach, considering both strict contractual adherence and the commercial reality of “commercial usability” in assessing product acceptance.
  • While upholding the importance of agreed-upon terms, the case opened discussions on flexibility and practicality in situations of minor deviations without impacting functionality.
  • However, some argue the decision might introduce uncertainties in interpreting strict specifications and balancing them against commercial considerations.


This case highlights the complex interplay between contractual rigor and commercial practicality in product acceptance. Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son reminds us that while precise terms hold value, considering their intended purpose and the actual usability of delivered goods plays a crucial role in resolving disputes arising from technical non-compliance. The case continues to influence how courts and parties navigate the intricacies of contract interpretation and product acceptance in a dynamic commercial landscape.

Why Choose Us:

Unlock the door to legal prowess with our bespoke Law Assignments service. Our seasoned writers, well-versed in the intricacies of legal studies, transform complex concepts into meticulously crafted assignments. By choosing us, you enlist a team committed to elevating your understanding of the law. Our Law Assignments go beyond meeting academic standards; they epitomize clarity, depth, and a profound grasp of legal nuances. With us, your academic journey becomes a seamless exploration of the legal realm, where assignments become a testament to your expertise. Immerse yourself in an unparalleled learning experience, where every assignment shapes your path to success.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933. Retrieved from
"Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933 [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Arcos v EA Ronaasen & Son – 1933 | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Barclays Bank v O’Brien

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Barclays Bank v O’Brien: Barclays Bank v O’Brien is a landmark case that significantly shaped the legal landscape concerning undue influence in mortgage transactions. This case underscores the importance of safeguarding vulnerable parties from exploitation and coercion, particularly in contexts where there is a significant power imbalance. By analyzing the facts, legal principles, […]

R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame

UK Law . Last modified: March 5, 2024

Introduction to R v Secretary of State for Transport: R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990) stands as a pivotal case in UK legal history, navigating the turbulent waters of conflicting loyalties between domestic law and the supremacy of European Community (EC) law. This case explores the tension between national sovereignty […]

Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62

UK Law . Last modified: March 5, 2024

Introduction to Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62, decided by the House of Lords, stands as a pivotal English contract law case concerning the interplay between mistaken identity, void contracts, and the rights of bona fide purchasers. The central question revolved around whether Mr. Hudson, who bought a […]

Baker v Willoughby – 1970

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Baker v Willoughby: Baker v Willoughby is a significant case in discussions of tort law, highlighting key aspects of personal injury and negligence claims. This legal dispute involving Baker and Willoughby has a profound impact on understanding legal responsibilities concerning subsequent injuries. Its importance lies in shaping the principles governing personal injury law […]

R v Watson – 1989

UK Law . Last modified: March 28, 2024

Introduction to R v Watson – 1989: R v Watson 1989 is a seminal case that examines the intersection of criminal liability and mental capacity. This case revolves around the legal dispute between the plaintiff, represented by the prosecution (R), and the defendant, Watson, regarding the defendant’s actions and mental state at the time of […]

Sumpter v Hedges – 1898

UK Law . Last modified: January 24, 2024

Introduction to Sumpter v Hedges – 1898: In 1897, Mr. Sumpter, eager to build two houses and stables on his land, entered a contract with Mr. Hedges, a builder. The agreement stipulated a lump sum payment upon completion. Mr. Hedges began construction, but after laying the foundations and partially erecting the structures, he abruptly abandoned […]

go to top