Fault did not render the vehicle of unsatisfactory quality – Claim dismissed

legal updates

A Lawgistics Pre Delivery Inspection checklist would help evidence that the vehicle was in the best possible condition when it was sold.

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.

At the final hearing in early May the Judge initially suggested that the six month rule applied, i.e. that goods which do not conform to the contract at any time within the period of six months beginning with the day on which the goods were delivered to the Consumer must be taken not to have conformed to it on that day.

However, Counsel for the Trader argued that this only applied for the purposes of the remedies in section 48A of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and not for the purposes of determining a breach of contract claim and the Judge accepted that argument.

Counsel for the Trader went on to argue that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the fault (electrical) was present on the 31 March. This issue was hotly contested by the Consumers representative.

Even if the fault was present on the 31 March, it was argued that it did not render the Vehicle of unsatisfactory quality since (a) the Vehicle was second hand with 40,000 miles on the clock; (b) the fault was resolved quickly; (c) the Vehicle had driven for 300 miles since repair without further issue; and (d) the total cost of repair was just £103 inclusive.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Judge found (1) that the fault manifested on the 7 April was probably present on the 31 March; and (2) that the fault was not such as to render the Vehicle not of satisfactory quality. Claim dismissed.

Another famous victory for common sense and Lawgistsics!

A Lawgistics Pre Delivery Inspection checklist would help evidence that the vehicle was in the best possible condition when it was sold. For advice on this or any consumer related issues Lawgistics members can speak with the legal team.

HaswentWebsites for dealers small and large

Composer is a next-gen automotive platform that has been designed from the ground up to give you an intuitive way to promote your stock. You have extensive stock management options, and you'll gain a brilliantly responsive new website to advertise your stock, starting at just £39.99/month.

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

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.