Claim for “Double Bubble” is burst in court

legal updates

The customer would not accept that he was asking for money that had already been given to him by another to make good the defect. 

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.

I have heard some legal claptrap in my time – and not just when this author is dishing out advice on his telephone day either – but this takes the biscuit!

Our client is sued for the cost of repairs to a car. It is objected to because of a lack of evidence of defect at point of sale, fair wear and tear, etc., and as is often the case, the judge set the bar for our client to prove this to a level that was impossible to meet. However, even Judge Generous had limits. Part of the objection was that £1200 of the repair bill had been paid for by the warranty company. Yet the customer was claiming this £1200 from our client and did not mention at any stage up to the trial that the warranty company had already met that expense.

When presented with this in court, the claimant’s justification was thus – because he had paid additionally for a third party warranty, the warranty payout was under a separate contract to the contract he had with our client for the purchase of the car. And as the warranty payout was under a separate contract, this should not be taken into consideration when assessing the extent of our client’s contractual breach. The customer would not accept that he was asking for money that had already been given to him by another to make good the defect. He was asking to be given the money twice, and thankfully this element of the claim, at least, was dismissed.

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

Maintaining professionalism in customer disputes

Your emails may be presented to a judge for review to help decide on how you have handled the matter before the court’s involvement.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

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.