Author: Howard Tilney
Published: April 20, 2019
Reading time: 1 minute
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.
So the Court found at a recent hearing against our member.
The Consumer’s allegation that a warranty had been mis-sold was not properly pleaded and had the Warranty Company concerned honoured the warranty, as required under its terms, then the parties would not have been before the Court, in any event.
The Judge noted there were lots of examples where the warranty did not cover certain issues/parts but that did not necessarily render the warranty invalid, as the Consumer alleged.
That said, our member was found liable for the cost of repair, which it previously offered at mediation but had been refused.
Since the hearing would have been avoided had the Consumer properly accepted such offer, the Judge did not allow recovery of the hearing fee and the interest claim was reduced from 8% to 2 % per annum, as argued.
