Author: Jason Williams
Published: May 12, 2014
Reading time: 2 minutes
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.
One of our clients was being sued for £7000 for the alleged cost of a replacement engine in a Porsche that was suffering from “bore-scoring”.
The consumer was arguing under the Sale of Goods Act whereas we wrote the defence partly based on this being a wear and tear issue and not a defect.
Mediation was unsuccessful so the case was heard by a District Judge in a “Small Claims” hearing at the Claimant’s local County Court.
The Court found in our client’s favour and dismissed the claim. HOWEVER, the question as to whether this issue is a defect or fair wear and tear remains unanswered.
For the first part of the defence was that:
- The car was still being driven.
- The quotation for repairs was handwritten on a compliment slip and, primarily
- The Claimant was asking the court to order our client Defendant to pay for repairs that hadn’t been undertaken. In essence, asking our client for a windfall without the consumer Claimant actually having incurred any financial loss. We suggested that it would be wholly inappropriate for the court to do this. After all, who could guarantee that the consumer wouldn’t simply blow it on a holiday or a new extension instead?
The Judge agreed with this submission and refused the claim on these points alone. Therefore he did not have to consider whether bore scoring is a defect under the Sale of Goods Act or simply wear and tear.