Irish Asphart Case Study

In 2008, a case was taken by James Elliot Construction Limited (JEC) against Irish Asphalt Limited (IAL), the supplier of the rock aggerate product in this case known as Clause 804. The case was taken against Irish Asphalt ltd because just three years after the completion of the premises, floors and walls began to crack and this in turn required remediation works to be carried out by the plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought compensation as from Irish Asphalt claiming excess amounts of pyrite in the aggerate was the cause. The High Court found the material was not fit for purpose or of merchantable quality under sale and supply of goods legislation and had given rise to pyritic heave. This essay will focus on the significance of this case’s decision and the impact that it has had and will have on the construction industry of Ireland and abroad.

Background to case
The cause of this damage is at the centre of the dispute between Elliott Construction and Irish Asphalt. Elliott Construction claims that the bulging and cracking was due to the abundant presence of a mineral called pyrite within the Clause 804 hardcore sold to it by Irish Asphalt. This mineral than reacted with water, producing sulphuric acid and this, in turn reacts with calcite formations within the crushed stone, causing crystals of gypsum to form, thus opening laminations within the stone,

v. Lupdine Ltd. [1987] 1 All E.R. 135, the Court of Appeal in England upheld such an argument. In that case the plaintiffs bought pails of waterproofing varnish from the defendant. These were exported to Kuwait where they were left on a quayside in the full glare of the sun which raised the temperature of the plastic containers to around 70º Celsius. Curiously, the Court of Appeal incorporated the former statutory law on this subject notwithstanding that the Sale of Goods Act 1979 had amended the Sale of Goods Act 1893, which was common to Britain and Ireland as of the date it had been