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.
What most people don’t know is that talent development doesn’t have to be complicated, high risk or expensive. Once they integrate key development stages, the results can be remarkable. Empower your team. Lead your industry. We’re your strategic learning partner, driving performance by moving skills forward.
