The subtle art of distributing responsibilities: the industrial client’s fault in the choice of component
The subtle art of distributing responsibilities: the industrial client’s fault in the choice of component
Monday, March 3, 2025
Erola Gràcia
Litigation strategy is an art, a game of details that can completely change the outcome of a case that, at first glance, seemed lost. When you receive a file in which 94 out of 95 industrial components have failed, the first reaction is to blame the component supplier. But appearances are deceiving, and the answer is not always clear. The distribution of responsibilities in such cases is a meticulous task, a methodical search in which every small detail can reveal a hidden truth.
Culpa in eligendo: the weight of choice
The concept of culpa in eligendo refers to the responsibility borne by the one who chooses a third party to carry out a task. In the field of industrial business litigation, this principle is applied by analogy and becomes fundamental when a client selects a supplier to provide components that, on their own, have no utility, since they are intended to be incorporated into a machine to fulfill a function. Consider a screw: by itself, it has no functionality, it does not join anything. It only fulfills its purpose when incorporated into a larger and more complex component or machine.
In many cases, when a component shows defects, the immediate assumption is a manufacturing fault. But what happens when reality is more complex? When the engineers who designed the machine fail to correctly anticipate the conditions of use, do not specify the appropriate material, or do not calibrate the technical requirements, who should be held accountable? Technical details become the pieces of a puzzle that must be fitted together with precision.
Investigation in detail: an illustrative case
Let us imagine a company that purchases bearings for a machine that must operate outdoors. If the client’s engineers do not specify that the material must be stainless and the supplier delivers a standard product, the premature wear is not the supplier’s fault but rather the client’s inadequate selection. The error in choice is often disguised among vague specifications and hasty decisions, but a thorough analysis always reveals the reality.
The key role of contractual clauses: a double-edged sword
Contracts between companies must define, with absolute clarity, the responsibilities of each party. Suppliers should not assume risks that do not correspond to them for mechanisms they have not designed. The inclusion of clauses that limit liability based on the information provided by the client is essential to avoid future conflicts. Thus, for a supplier, it is crucial not to take responsibility for the uses, loads, and functioning of the mechanisms into which its component must be incorporated. And for the client, it is important that the supplier knows as many details as possible about the intended use of the component.
When strategy changes everything: case law
A recent case handled by GRÀCIACALBET, Section 14 of the Provincial Court of Barcelona, in judgment 981/2024 of 12/02/2024, appeal 749/2022, exemplifies the importance of a good strategic approach. Initially, it seemed clear that the supplier had delivered defective components. However, a thorough analysis showed that the product was not defective and that liability lay with the client, who had chosen a product that was not suitable for the function for which it was intended.
It involved bearings intended to transmit motion, which the client used in photovoltaic panels, but their engineers chose standard bearings without requiring any level of sealing, without defining a temperature range, and without specifying that the materials should be stainless, among other aspects. The result? Most of the bearings were installed outdoors, in areas with extreme temperatures and adverse weather conditions. Consequently, most of them seized up when water entered the gears and froze due to low temperatures. Although initial impressions blamed the supplier, a meticulous defense, a detailed study of every element of the case, and a clear argument in court led the Court to dismiss the claim, ruling that the responsibility for the bearing failures lay with the client, who had wrongly chosen the component for their solar trackers.
The judgment also addressed key aspects of international sales of goods, such as the validity of documents in a foreign language or the application of the 1980 Vienna Convention and its limitation periods, which was well worth a blog entry by José Carlos Fernandez Rozas, Professor of Private International Law and Member of the Institut de Droit International.
The art of litigating in technical matters: fault, contracts, and strategy
This case highlights the importance of a well-thought-out strategic approach in litigation, particularly in industrial disputes. The concept of culpa in eligendo—liability for choosing a third party—emerges as a key element in determining responsibility, especially when components or materials are involved. In this case, the initial assumption of supplier fault turned out to be wrong, with liability ultimately falling on the client for having made an inadequate choice of components.
The case underscores how crucial it is to clearly define specifications, particularly when selecting components for a specific function. Engineers and clients must take into account all technical factors—such as environmental conditions and material requirements—to ensure the longevity and functionality of the products. Errors in these areas can lead to significant consequences.
In addition, the judgment emphasizes the importance of thorough analysis and the strategic use of contractual clauses, ensuring that liability is correctly allocated and that both parties are aware of the technical requirements. This case also highlights the role of international commercial laws, such as the 1980 Vienna Convention, in the effective resolution of commercial disputes.
Finally, a meticulous and strategic approach can not only change the outcome of a case but also help prevent similar problems in future contractual relationships.
Every lawsuit is a clash of reasoning, where precision and strategic vision can transform the outcome of a case. Culpa in eligendo is not just a legal doctrine applied by analogy to industrial litigation, but also a reminder that, in the business world, making decisions without proper knowledge can have serious consequences. As lawyers, our challenge is to uncover the hidden truth in the details, turn complexity into a simple yet compelling narrative, and ultimately ensure that justice prevails.
