Author: Jason Williams
Published: August 25, 2017
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 4 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.
Lawgistics have again had success in defending a case brought by an over expectant consumer.
The buyer mentioned in emails that they wanted additional compensation such as vehicle hire, recovery costs and other alleged losses caused by what the consumer said was a defective vehicle. Our client offered to reimburse her the purchase price of the vehicle in return for the vehicle, keys and paperwork. The consumer accepted by her actions of handing everything back whereupon the purchase price was returned to the consumer who then went on to sue for the alleged consequential losses.
Had our client lost, he stood to lose close on £1000. However, the Judge dismissed almost all of the claim, except just £66!
The court did not allow the court fees to be met by our client either because it accepted the argument that had the Claimant been realistic and asked for £66 at the beginning, it would have received it without the need to have to go to court.