A reasonable price to be paid for a service

legal updates

The defendant paid only a portion of the invoice, promising to pay the remainder in good time, and took the vehicle.

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.

Section 51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 provides that where a contract does not expressly fix a price or other consideration and does not say how it is to be fixed, the contract is to be treated as including a term that the consumer must pay a reasonable price for the service.

The court recently intervened in such circumstances. 

The claimant, our member, and a qualified mechanic of over 30 years was seeking recovery under an invoice for repair work carried out to the defendant’s vehicle by way of a replacement reconditioned engine and associated work. 

The customer’s engine was in a non-repairable state due to overheating. The customer had failed to have his car serviced for over 18 months and 28,000 miles.

It was agreed our member would install a reconditioned engine. The defendant paid only a portion of the invoice, promising to pay the remainder in good time, and took the vehicle.  He subsequently failed to pay, and our member instigated proceedings in the county court. 

Upon issue of the claim, the defendant said that the work was defective and sought to counterclaim.

The district judge considered the issue of the agreement first. There was no written record of what was agreed about the price or quotation. The parties’ recollections of the discussions varied. However, the judge concluded that a complete quote of between £1500-£2000 was given for the engine and considered it unrealistic that the job could have been undertaken for a lower sum.

The parties had exchanged text messages and there was no message expressing surprise or disagreement on receipt of the invoice, just a discussion about payment terms, upon which the claimant was unusually generous. The absence of a message saying: “hold on, we agreed X price” was inexplicable if there was an agreement of a lower price as the defendant alleged. 

The judge found that in the circumstances, he could not find there was any explicit binding quote and as there was a dispute over the amount, it was for the court to assess what a reasonable figure was for the work undertaken.

The judge had some concerns about the invoice which the claimant could not account for and stated that the practice of adding an uplift to purchased parts is morally questionable.  This involves actively representing on the invoice that an item has been charged at cost when it is not. If this is done the judge found, a trader crosses the line into actively misleading the customer. The judge deducted £200 from the bill accordingly.

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

The judge, however, found that the total of the invoice of £3500 was not unreasonable nor excessive and made a judgement for our member in the sum claimed and ordered the defendant to pay our member’s costs. 

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

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.

Can I claim a loss of profits?

Consideration must then be given to the three elements of a loss of profit claim.

Upon receiving a new court claim, do not delay

The consequences of missing a court deadline can be catastrophic.

Poorly pleaded claim, dismissed with costs

This case demonstrates in stark terms the value of being properly advised.

The Advantages of a Fabian Strategy

Some people will have genuine concerns they just want to see addressed.

Judges want expert reports

Expert reports are vital to help judges fairly resolve motor trade disputes and determine faults at sale.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

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.