Non-conformity of the goods does not arise only from physical features of the goods, but rather also from legal and factual relations of the goods to their surroundings. Therefore, the non-physical features of the goods, such as compliance with good manufacturing practice, the delivery of certificates of technological goods, organic and ethical food production (e.g., halal) or the absence of any negative features of the goods (e.g., child labour or bacterial food infections), play a vital role in assessing, whether the seller adequately performed its obligation under the contract to deliver conforming goods. All of the abovementioned examples have in common that non-physical features are just as important if not more important than physical features of the goods in determining, whether the goods conform to the usability for their ordinary or particular purpose. Due to the importance of the influence of external circumstances on the assessment of the conformity of the goods, the mere suspicion of a defect may prevent or impede the usability of the goods for their intended use (e.g., impeding their resaleability), thereby amounting to non-conformity of the goods for which the seller is liable. Suspicion of non-conformity is thus, not a predecessor of non-conformity, but forms a specific type of non-conformity. Temporal limitation of liability of the seller for the non-conformity of the goods establishes legal certainty for the seller on the one hand, while at the same time reduces the rights of the buyer to exercise its remedies. When a suspicion of non-conformity impedes the usability of the goods for their intended purpose, fair attribution of liability for the suspicion of a defect is essential to assess, whether the suspicion itself amounts to non-conformity and represents a breach of the sales contract.
|
