Author: Jason Williams
Published: June 24, 2016
Reading time: 1 minute
This article is 9 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.
We are somewhat amused yet bemused by the “advice” given to one of our members by a Council’s Trading Standards service.
This involved a 10 year old Mercedes which was sold to a consumer who subsequently discovered that the parcel shelf was not an original Mercedes one. His Trading Standards Department wrote this: “If a parcel shelf came with a car it would most likely be logical that if it was the correct parcel shelf for the car unless it was specifically pointed out to the consumer at the time of sale. If not, the consumer would have the right to reject the car under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and claim a full refund”.
Suffice to say we think this is not the case and have pointed them in the direction of the Court of Appeal case of Brewer v Mann. Here, the court recognised that the way in which a car is described in an advertisement might be an opinion rather than fact, which may not be unreasonable as cars get older and new or replacement parts are fitted to it over the years.
