Finance company fails to mitigate loss! Standard


The court can refuse to allow damages to a Claimant in respect of any part of the loss which is due to his own neglect to take steps.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 2 years 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.

So was the finding of the Court in a reserved written judgment handed down by the Judge following a recent small claims hearing attended by our member.

This was a claim for breach of contract arising from the sale, on finance, of a BMW for the sum of £5,995.00. The BMW was rejected by the end user/consumer, which our member did accept. Regardless, finance (the ‘Claimant’) accepted the rejection and rescinded the agreement.

Finance then sold the BMW at auction for just £924 net!

On the facts, the Judge determined that our member was liable for breach of contract having innocently misrepresented the mileage of the BMW. 

The Judge accepted evidence that the cap value of the BMW was something North of £3,000.00 and was concerned to know why it failed to achieve anything like that figure at auction. This went to the issue of mitigation. 

He considered it was very unfair that our member should wear the burden of that, particularly when evidence was given that it had offered finance some £2,995.00 to buy back the BMW, which finance had unreasonably refused.

The Judge went on to state “The Claimants have a duty to mitigate and the law certainly requires a Claimant in the position of the Claimants to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent upon the Defendant’s wrong”.

He continued “The court can refuse to allow damages to a Claimant in respect of any part of the loss which is due to his own neglect to take steps. In other words, are there losses that the Claimant ought to have avoided”.

The Judge then quoted McGregor on Damages, which says “Even persons against whom wrongs have been committed are not entitled to sit back and suffer loss which could have been avoided by reasonable efforts or to continue any activity unreasonably so as to increase the loss”.

The Judge found that it was open to finance to have accepted our members offer. He was satisfied that it was wholly wrong for finance to have sat back and auctioned the BMW in the state it was left in by the consumer and expect our member to pay losses of more than £5,000.00.

Howard Tilney

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.