Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

legal updates

A County Court ruling has reinforced the importance of solid evidence and clear contracts, rejecting a broker's claim against a car dealer over an alleged pre-existing fault.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

A recent County Court judgment delivered a clear victory for car dealers, firmly rejecting a broker’s claim that was built on questionable contract terms and muddled evidence.

In this case, the court dismissed the broker’s attempt to recover losses linked to an alleged pre-existing fault, citing serious issues with both their contract documentation and the evidence presented.

The broker argued that the dealership’s terms and conditions, dated long after the dealer’s account had opened, automatically applied to the transaction. However, the dealer’s director gave clear evidence that he had never seen these terms, despite a lengthy trading relationship. The judge agreed, pointing out there was little evidence to show these terms ever formed part of the agreement, casting serious doubt on the broker’s position.

Equally damaging to the broker was its reliance on a technical report that used vague language such as “in development at point of sale.” The judge described the report and its follow up letters as confusing and arguably contradictory. Importantly, the broker made no effort to clarify the report’s meaning or call the author as a witness.

Further weakening the claim was the absence of a statement from the end customer, who only raised concerns about the vehicle five months after delivery. This delay prompted obvious questions about why the vehicle had been accepted at all if it truly had a serious fault from the outset.

In dismissing the claim, the court concluded the case lacked evidence and failed to meet the required burden of proof. The judge noted that the dealer’s evidence, including a clear MOT and service at the point of sale, was significant and persuasive.

If you have faced a similar issue or find yourself dealing with unclear contractual claims, why not call our legal team at Lawgistics? Our casework service and expert helpline are here to help you defend your business.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Kiril MoskovchukTrainee SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Small Claims and Expert Fees: Understanding the £750 Cap

Parties should carefully consider the necessity and proportionality of obtaining expert evidence to avoid incurring irrecoverable costs.

Buyer Beware: £4K Discovery claim falls flat in court

An opportunistic claim for nearly £9,000 on a £4,000 used vehicle was thrown out by the court, reinforcing the principle of caveat emptor in business-to-business sales.

Two Years of Lawgistics Litigation Support

Since launching Lawgistics Litigation for the Motor Trade, we’ve saved our members over £2.6 million in court claims.

Of Pedantry and Pleadings

From faulty sat navs to forgotten responsibilities, we explore how modern claims are testing the limits of common sense in legal disputes.

Concise or Incomplete? The challenges of vague pleadings by litigants in person

As online claims get shorter, your courtroom strategy needs to get sharper. Here’s why.

Recent Cases, Real Consequences – and What to Learn

From missed emails to misplaced vehicles, here are a few real-world reminders to help you avoid unnecessary headaches.

Costs of issuing proceedings and becoming a “Claimant”

Lawgistics Ltd can assist you by drafting a letter before action compliant with Pre-Action Protocols as part of the service included in your membership.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.