Reconditioned/remanufactured engine case turns on a single joint expert report

legal updates

The court considered the terms relating to the supply of services and the implied term of reasonable care and skill under section 49 of the Act.

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 recent outcome of a hard-fought claim against one of our members who had been sued for breach of contract after carrying out work on a vehicle presented to them as “a non-runner”.

The Claimant was confrontational throughout, including during the presentation of her evidence before the court, which endeared her to no one.

She tried and failed to argue that she understood the engine was to be remanufactured and would be returned to her “…as good as new”, despite the estimate and invoices presented stating “reconditioned engine”. The distinction was not lost on anyone with a modicum of sense but she persisted, regardless.

Unsurprisingly, the court found it was neither expressly agreed nor implied that the engine would be remanufactured and be like new, and so the first limb of her claim failed.

The court turned to implied terms under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“the Act”) and specifically sections 9 and 10 thereof with regard to the supply and delivery of goods, notably engine parts, by our member. In this case, the expert evidence recorded that the parts supplied were not of satisfactory quality, had failed within six months, and the judge found that our member had been unable to rebut the legal presumption that the goods did not conform at the time of delivery.

The court then considered the terms relating to the supply of services and the implied term of reasonable care and skill under section 49 of the Act, where the burden of proof falls on the Claimant. Again, the judge turned to the expert evidence on the point, that identified the work was not carried out to the appropriate standard and amounted to a breach of these implied terms.

Turning to the remedy for such a breach, section 56 of the Act provides the consumer with a right to a price reduction and section 56(2) says this amount might be the full amount of the price. In determining the appropriate level of reduction, the judge noted the disagreement between the parties was significant as to the costs of the replacement parts.

Again, the judge was guided by the expert’s opinion that the replacement of such parts would allow the engine to run as intended. The expert agreed with our member as to the items required, as they had previously quoted. The Claimant argued and relied on her own quotation.

The judge was satisfied that the appropriate remedy was to complete the work identified by the expert, as quoted by our member in 2019, as adjusted to take account of prevailing market forces, and settled on a figure between the two opposing quotations. Something of a judicial fudge in the final assessment, which is not uncommon, but the real takeaway from this case which was complicated and hard-fought over a protracted period, is the decision of the court almost entirely turned on the evidence of a single joint expert, the import of which cannot be underestimated in such cases. This is why Lawgistics and Lawgistics Litigation often advise the commissioning of quality expert evidence either on a unilateral basis or as a single joint expert, as appropriate.

Brave AgencyDriving growth in the automotive industry

Brave is an award-winning digital agency offering a comprehensive range of services aimed at helping your business grow. From rebrands and web development to marketing campaigns that get you noticed, we do it all. Since 2000, we’ve helped businesses across the automotive sector reach new heights. Could yours be next?

Howard TilneyHead of Strategy / Legal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Warning to all! You must follow the orders of the court!

Had the consumer been reasonable, this issue could have been resolved without going to court.

Claim struck out for non-attendance

A twelve year old van, had been sold to a business without a warranty and more than 130,000 miles on the clock.

Consequential loss: “There has to be a limit for which the defendant is held responsible.”

The consumer argued that she was unable to buy another vehicle since she could not afford one, hence the scale of her claim for transport costs.

What? You want me to pay after nearly 6 years?

After 5 years, 8 months, and 41,000 miles, there was a problem with the vehicle, and it ultimately required a new engine costing £4,600.

Don’t be late!!!

As our member was leaving the court, the Claimant arrived, approximately 15 minutes after the allotted time.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.