Ball from the golf club next door broke my son's window. Who should pay? DEAN DUNHAM replies
My son's house backs onto a golf course and two weeks ago a golf ball came over the hedge and broke his upstairs bathroom window.
The golf club says it is not its responsibility, and he should take it up with the golfer who broke the window, whose details it supplied.
My son feels that this should be the responsibility of the golf club – is he correct?
M.Greenway, via email.
![A reader's son has been left with a hefty bill after a stray ball from a nearby golf course smashed through his bathroom window](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/08/13/18/88489865-13739939-image-a-2_1723571232835.jpg)
A reader's son has been left with a hefty bill after a stray ball from a nearby golf course smashed through his bathroom window
Dean Dunham replies: If your son's house was built after the golf course, the club itself will ordinarily not be liable for any damage caused by its users.
This is because the potential risk of damage from users of the golf course existed prior to the house being built.
If, on the other hand, the golf course was built after the house, it could be argued that it was foreseeable that your son's house could be damaged by users of the course, potentially meaning the golf club could be liable.
The same argument could be made if the golf club has been significantly altered in a way that has increased the risk of damage from golfers.
If your son's home insurance covers this type of damage – which I think it will do – my advice is to tell your son to make a claim and pass all the relevant details to his insurer.
However, he will first need to make sure that it would be financially worthwhile to do this once his insurance excess is taken into account.
He will need to give his insurer details of the individual who caused the damage and details of whether the golf course was built before or after his house was developed.
His insurance provider will be far better placed to decide who is ultimately liable. On the basis that at least one of these parties is liable it shouldn't affect his premiums.
If your son regularly finds golf balls in his garden or near his boundary, he could put the golf club on notice that a serious risk of damage (or even injury) exists and ask how it proposes to minimise the risk.
Wedding wine switch cost me an extra £50
I ordered 50 bottles of Pinot Grigio for my wedding, but when the wine merchant made the delivery it said it had run out and brought 50 bottles of Chardonnay instead at £1 more per bottle.
It says I must pay the difference – is that right?
R.M., via email.
Dean Dunham replies: When you buy goods from a trader, its terms and conditions (if they are sufficiently brought to your attention pre-purchase) will form the terms of the contract between yourself and the trader.
However, this will not be the full extent of the contract, as all the relevant parts of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 that impose obligations on the trader in relation to the sale of goods will also apply – these are known as 'implied terms'.
One of those implied terms under the Act is that goods must be 'as described', so the moment the wine merchant delivered the wrong wine to you, it was effectively in 'breach of contract'.
At this point you were entitled to a remedy, the main options being a full refund or replacement goods, which in this case would mean receiving the 50 bottles of Pinot Grigio that you actually ordered or keeping the more expensive wine without paying the difference.
Unfortunately, the trader has the right to choose which remedy to invoke, so could say it will simply refund you in full.
But what it cannot do is force you to keep the wrong goods and pay the extra £1 per bottle – it can only take this route if you agree.
If you feel forced to keep the incorrect wine due to time constraints, my advice is to tell the merchant that unless it waives the additional charge you will claim consequential losses arising out of the breach of contract, as you are perfectly entitled to do under the Consumer Rights Act.
As a consequence of the breach, you would therefore be put to extra expense in paying the additional £1 per bottle.
Alternatively, you could say that under English law the remedy for breach of contract is to put you back into the position you would have been in had the breach not occurred.
If the wine merchant simply refunds you, it results in a loss if you cannot find a suitable replacement on time – and if it charges you the extra £1 per bottle, you are clearly put into a worse position.