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.

Connected Car FinanceReady to take the connected approach?

We’re here to ensure all used car dealerships deliver a better car finance experience for their customers. With over 4,000 approved dealer partners we ensure you are properly supported and connected with a range of flexible finance options, allowing you to lend and your customers to buy in complete confidence.

Roxanne BradleyLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

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.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Indemnities – Handle with Care!

Indemnity clauses are usually onerous by design and drafted in broad terms so dealers should not make the mistake of overlooking them.

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.