Author: Roxanne Bradley
Published: January 12, 2017
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.
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.