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.

Wearewood Services LtdMotor Trade Web Specialists

We offer an all-encompassing web, digital & design service specially tailored to the Motor Industry.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Broker Falls Flat: Court Dismisses Flimsy Claim Against Dealer

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.

Coincidence or Cause? When Timing Leads to Claims

A motorcycle engine seized just 30 miles after a service, sparking a claim of negligence. Find out how this case unfolded in court and why coincidence doesn’t always mean liability.

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.

AI is the future – but treat it with care!

AI can be a powerful ally—but recent cases show its misuse can lead to serious consequences, even contempt of court.

The devil is in the detail

A solid report can make or break your legal case, but even minor mistakes can be costly. Learn what details to double-check in vehicle reports and how to avoid common pitfalls that could undermine your evidence in court.

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.