Satisfactory Quality?

legal updates

This case was brought under the Sale of Goods Act and not the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

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.

This week a District Judge, was not persuaded a Claimant could satisfy the test under S14 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that a vehicle was not of satisfactory quality. The Claimant also failed to persuade the DJ he was a consumer.  

The Claimant, who described himself as ‘very fussy’ inspected a towing vehicle over some considerable time before purchasing it.   In his subsequent particulars of claim he stated he was not happy with the condition of the vehicle at the time of purchase, despite proceeding with it with the purchase.

He brought a claim against our member for a monetary amount plucked from the air which he believed he was due in damages for some minor cosmetic issues he said were not noticeable at the time of his lengthy inspection.  

It was put to the DJ that the Claimant was in fact attempting to renegotiate what he had by that time considered to be a bad bargain for the purchase price and that it is not the function of the court to re-open negotiations as to the value of the consideration of the contract.   If so, the court would be inundated with such claims.  

The DJ found that the Claimant’s difficulty was that if the cosmetic defects of which he complained were so small that they were not noticed for days after purchase and then only in a certain light, it is hard therefore to see that a reasonable person would conclude that the car was not of satisfactory quality.   If, on the other hand they were present at the time, and sufficient for a reasonable person to make that conclusion, then the examination available to Mr Anderson should have revealed them.   The claim therefore failed on both the satisfactory quality test and in the opportunity to inspect.

This case was brought under the Sale of Goods Act and not the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because both parties were believed to be businesses.

WeRecruit Auto LtdPermanent Automotive Recruitment from an experienced and trustworthy recruitment partner.

We cover roles within all departments and sectors of the Automotive industry, and are here to listen to your specific needs and find the most suitable candidates to fit your business.

Polly DaviesLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Maintaining professionalism in customer disputes

Your emails may be presented to a judge for review to help decide on how you have handled the matter before the court’s involvement.

Assist your consumer… before it’s too late

If a consumer is ignored or refused assistance by you, and a repair is carried out, you will no longer be able to inspect the failed component.

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.

Consequential Losses

General stress and anxiety is not recoverable, otherwise everybody would claim it, similarly the time spent in dealing with a claim is generally not recoverable.

Car sold with a fault

Ensure the consumer is aware, understands, and most importantly, accepts the vehicle is subject to fault.

What you pay for is what you get

The consumer presented our member with the bill because they wrongly thought they had the right to do what they wanted.

Customer reneges on agreed not distance sale

Our member explained they do not offer a delivery service and do not engage in distance selling.

Get in touch

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

01480 455500

Vinpenta House
High Causeway

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.