Court awards ‘bizarre’ loss for breach of contract

legal_updates

This case shows how unpredictable the courts are and how impossible it is to answer “What are my chances of winning in court?”

Author: Jason Williams
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 3 months 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.

The usual story, a consumer sues for more than the value of the car she seeks to reject. Our client defends it but the judge finds in favour of the consumer although we firmly believe there was no real justification for it.

The consumer sought to add insurance, tax and, wait for it… the cost of TWO covers that had been put over the car whilst it was parked.  And why two? Because apparently one cover had blown off down the street and she chose to pay for a replacement! Despite strong protests, the judge allowed this loss because he felt she was protecting the car from damage.

She also claimed for postage, which was given but not for photocopying, however this was only after the judge had checked the rules upon being told that photocopying was not recoverable. The Claimant also tried to claim £40 a month for apparently parking the car on someone’s driveway! This was not allowed in court BUT only because the Claimant could not prove it! Luckily for our client, she didn’t produce a cigarette packet or post-it note with the words “parking £40 a month” on it or she may well have trousered that amount too.

The above shows how unpredictable the courts are and how impossible it is for us to answer that one question we always get asked: “What are my chances of winning in court?” The answer, my friends, is the same. Heads? Or tails? Oh, and someone else gets to call…

Impression Communications Ltd

Putting the motive in automotive

Impression works with businesses across the automotive aftermarket supply chain such as parts suppliers, warehouse distributors, motor factors and independent garages. Covering all aspects of automotive aftermarket marketing, including social media, event management, customer newsletters and PR, Impression is able to quickly establish itself within a client’s business and work towards their objectives.

Jason Williams

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.