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.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

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

Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

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.

Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

Elusive Vehicle Noises: What to Do When You Can’t Find the Fault

More customers are reporting strange noises that seem impossible to trace. Learn practical steps to recreate, record, and address these elusive issues while protecting your business.

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.

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.