A New Year, a new court victory for a Lawgistics dealer

legal_updates

Our dealer had no obligation but still made a goodwill gesture

Author: Nona Bowkis
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 5 years old.

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.

It is always nice to start a new year with good news and already we have notched up a court win for one of our clients.

This was a case in which the consumer had issues with his vehicle. Our dealer had helped the consumer out on a goodwill basis earlier in the ownership but the consumer had returned as the warranty company had deemed the latest issue as one of wear and tear. As an issue of wear and tear, our dealer had no obligation either but still made a goodwill gesture in the name of customer service. However, the consumer wanted more and so approached the finance company. They also refused on the basis of wear and tear and so the consumer decided to take our dealer to court.

Right from the beginning, we advised that the consumer had no right to take our dealer to court as the consumer’s contract was with the finance company and not our dealer. Yes our dealer had previously helped him out but that was on a goodwill basis. The consumer couldn’t or didn’t want to see this as in his mind, perhaps understandably, he had bought the car from our dealer to whom he had given his part exchange and the dealer had helped him previously. We set out that the p/x was essentially a deposit on the finance deal and encouraged the consumer to look at the finance document and the invoice both of which showed that yes our dealer sold the car but, under the nature of the deal they sold it to the finance company who hired it to the consumer under a Conditional Sale Agreement. This all meant his contract was with the finance company and so his action should have been against them. When the case reached court, the judge agreed with us and dismissed the case, awarding our client his costs of attending plus travel costs.  

To be clear, it is fine to assist customers who have purchased their vehicle on finance but this is always as a goodwill gesture as legally their recourse is with the finance company. On a purely practical and reputational level, most dealers will help out in such circumstances but a dealer should never feel obligated in situations where the consumer has over inflated expectations and demands.

Nona Bowkis

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.