A question of hit or myth

摘要

There must be more myths abroad about the meaning and effect of the words "fitness for purpose" than about any other topic in the construction industry. What obligation do the words "fitness for purpose" impose and how is this different from an obligation to exercise "reasonable skill and care"? An express obligation drafted in similar terms to those implied by statute/ common law into contracts for the sale of goods and services would be that the goods supplied will be of "satisfactory quality". This includes a requirement that they be fit for the purpose for which they are commonly supplied, and if any particular purposes had been made known by the employer, for those purposes too.