Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

legal updates

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.

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 recent County Court judgment delivered a clear victory for car dealers, firmly rejecting a broker’s claim that was built on questionable contract terms and muddled evidence.

In this case, the court dismissed the broker’s attempt to recover losses linked to an alleged pre-existing fault, citing serious issues with both their contract documentation and the evidence presented.

The broker argued that the dealership’s terms and conditions, dated long after the dealer’s account had opened, automatically applied to the transaction. However, the dealer’s director gave clear evidence that he had never seen these terms, despite a lengthy trading relationship. The judge agreed, pointing out there was little evidence to show these terms ever formed part of the agreement, casting serious doubt on the broker’s position.

Equally damaging to the broker was its reliance on a technical report that used vague language such as “in development at point of sale.” The judge described the report and its follow up letters as confusing and arguably contradictory. Importantly, the broker made no effort to clarify the report’s meaning or call the author as a witness.

Further weakening the claim was the absence of a statement from the end customer, who only raised concerns about the vehicle five months after delivery. This delay prompted obvious questions about why the vehicle had been accepted at all if it truly had a serious fault from the outset.

In dismissing the claim, the court concluded the case lacked evidence and failed to meet the required burden of proof. The judge noted that the dealer’s evidence, including a clear MOT and service at the point of sale, was significant and persuasive.

If you have faced a similar issue or find yourself dealing with unclear contractual claims, why not call our legal team at Lawgistics? Our casework service and expert helpline are here to help you defend your business.

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.

Kiril MoskovchukTrainee SolicitorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Mediation appointments: the court’s take on ‘delays’

You can tell the court you’re unavailable, but will that stop a telephone mediation being listed? In our client’s case it didn’t, and the refusal to move it now means a full hearing next year.

Witness Statements: Own the Weakness and Turn Up to Court

Courts are scrutinising credibility more than ever. A Witness Statement that ducks its weak points or a witness who fails to attend risks serious damage to their case

Motor Traders have protection under s.27 of the Hire Purchase Act

Told that s.27 offers Motor Traders no protection at all? Not so. A private purchaser’s good title can flow through the chain to protect dealers, and we map out when it does and when it doesn’t.

Motor Finance Commissions: Supreme Court Slashes £44 Billion Payout, but Are Dealers Really Off the Hook?

The Supreme Court’s August ruling wiped most of the eye-watering £44 billion redress bill off the table, yet thousands of drivers could still pocket compensation when the FCA unveils its new scheme next year. Here’s what the decision really means for lenders, dealers and consumers.

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.

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.