Another success for a Lawgistics Client

legal updates

The vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale taking account of the price paid, its age, mileage and the subsequent mileage done after purchase.

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 Lawgistics client sold a vehicle which was over 10 years old and had covered almost 100,000 miles. It was therefore priced accordingly for £7,000.00 for a vehicle of this calibre.

4 months had passed since the Claimant took possession of the vehicle when they first contacted our client (the Defendant) requesting a full refund alleging the vehicle had developed a cooling system fault which led to the cylinder head cracking. It came to light, not only had the Claimant had the vehicle in their possession for 4 months but had covered a further 4,000 miles.

Whilst the Defendant offered a contribution as a goodwill gesture, this was refused. The Claimant issued proceedings.

The Defendant’s case was quite simple, it’s a second hand vehicle which was arguably, nearing the end of its life and which had covered significant mileage. It was evident the fault was not present at the time of sale (meaning the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale) and had merely developed a fault whilst in the Claimants possession due to fair wear and tear. Which is to be expected when buying a car of this nature!

The Judge agreed and the claim was dismissed along with the refusal of appeal requested by the Claimant. The Judge found the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale taking account of the price paid, its age, mileage and the subsequent mileage done after purchase.

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

Roxanne BradleyLitigation ExecutiveRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

“Running Well”: Two words that cost a consumer £3,300

The judge found our member’s repairs were sound and ruled the email undercut the later allegations, dismissing the claim and awarding expenses.

The photo you didn’t take could cost you thousands

Proving a vehicle’s condition at handover is the difference between recovering costs and footing the bill.

They Broke It, You Don’t Pay: Intervening Acts that defend dealer claims

When damage stems from what a customer did after purchase, you may not be on the hook.

To strike or not to strike

Courts are reluctant to strike out a claim or defence, even where there are procedural breaches. Here’s when CPR 3.4(2) genuinely applies, why summary judgment under Part 24 may be a better route, and what judges look for before taking the drastic step.

Is the legislative framework outdated or misunderstood?

A claimant mixed pre-2015 laws with a post-2015 car purchase and the result was, frankly, embarrassing.

Come On, Baby, Light My Fire

If a car goes up in smoke, does the buyer’s insurance mean the trader escapes liability? Here’s how insurer involvement really works…

Don’t Get Soaked: The Habitation Checks That Stop Motorhome Rejections

Buyers are rejecting motorhomes for damp, leaks and unsafe cabins. Here’s what to inspect in the habitation area and why a simple pre-sale check can save you a costly Consumer Rights Act dispute.

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.