One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

legal_updates

Here, the consumer attempted to reject his vehicle (an Audi TT) and seek a refund since he complained that it veered to the left.

Author: Howard Tilney
Published:
Reading time: 1 minute

This article is 7 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.

A tale of trivial pursuits.

The Court of Appeal case of Egan v. Motor Services (Bath) Ltd (2007) highlights the importance of seeking sensible early legal advice in order to save unnecessary expense.

Here, the consumer attempted to reject his vehicle (an Audi TT) and seek a refund since he complained that it veered to the left.

The Court ruled that the vehicle was of ‘satisfactory quality’ since its sensitivity to camber was normal for that type of car and a reasonable person would not consider the vehicle to be unsatisfactory as a result of such characteristic.

Accordingly, vehicles may have ‘characteristics’, which do not render them of unsatisfactory quality.

A sobering and expensive lesson for the consumer who lost the case, since legal costs came to £100,000 against a claim for just £32,000, leading one of the Appeal Court Judges to exclaim that the parties were “…completely cuckoo…” to have pursued the litigation when such little was at stake and that the lawyers should have taken “…the firmest grip…” from the outset.

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.