Consequential loss: “There has to be a limit for which the defendant is held responsible.”

legal updates

The consumer argued that she was unable to buy another vehicle since she could not afford one, hence the scale of her claim for transport costs.

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 was a statement made by the judge at a recent hearing against one of our members following the unwinding of a finance deal and a claim by the consumer for consequential losses arising therefrom.

The consumer’s pleaded case was for just £1,536.00 but she bowled up to the final hearing armed with 400 pages of evidence and a revised claim for £6,230.22!

The legal representative for our member had no great difficulty persuading the judge to limit the claim to the sum pleaded. 

The judge was also reminded of the usual rule (per Hadley and Baxendale) that consequential damages can be recovered only if, at the time the contract was made, the breaching party had reason to foresee that such damages would be the probable result of its breach.

The consumer sought to claim hire charges, Uber travel costs, insurance, recovery, and diagnostic charges.

While it was reasonably foreseeable that if the vehicle broke down there would be recovery and diagnostic charges plus some alternative transport costs, the consumer was under a duty to mitigate her loss to what was “reasonable”.

In this case, the consumer argued that she was unable to buy another vehicle since she could not afford one, hence the scale of her claim for transport costs.

In response to that point, the judge ruled that her impecuniosity was not something our member should be made liable for, and so the question became: “When should the consumer reasonably be expected to obtain an alternative vehicle, rather than racking up further expense with great abandon in the hopeful expectation these could be blithely deposited at our member’s door?”

The consumer was disavowed of such a notion since, as the judge rightly stated, there are limits for which a breaching party can be held responsible.

DMS NavigatorDealer Management System software for Car Sales, Aftersales and eCommerce

Our dealers use us to help them be more Efficient and Profitable!

You can use our Dealer and Lead Management software to integrate all dealership departments, both online and physical ; providing all in-house functions; Invoicing, Stock Management, Accounting and Marketing as well as interfacing for advertising, ecommerce and more.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal 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.

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.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.