The concept of “Specific Performance” in the car trade

legal updates

Surely, the proper way would be to claim for the “loss of bargain”.

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.

I dealt with an unusual court application recently – one which I never thought I would need to when I joined Lawgistics. 

The area of dispute is summarised as follows. Our client has ongoing discussions with a potential customer about the possibility of selling them a car once certain works have been done to it. Eventually, our client opts to cease e-mail exchanges and no longer wishes to consider selling it. The would-be customer is now suing our client for alleged breach of contract and it is our client’s case that there was never a contract in existence in the first place.

Court papers have been received not asking for compensation in the form of money (damages) to be paid but – rather – requesting that the Court orders that our client sells them that car. This is what is known as an order of Specific Performance.

The reason why it is so unexpected is that orders of Specific Performance are only available when monetary compensation for breach of contract is not a sufficient remedy. For example, if I find a Penny Black stamp down the back of my sofa and agree to sell it to a museum for 10 million pounds which I later renege on, an Order from the Court telling me that I must sell it would be appropriate.

However for a run of the mill vehicle costing about £7000 it seems quite bizarre to ask the court for this type of remedy. Surely, the proper way would be to claim for the “loss of bargain” – the difference in value between that car and obtaining an equivalent car elsewhere. We will keep you up-dated.

ECSC Group plcMore Secure

On average 55 vulnerabilities are identified daily.

What can I do?

Review your organisations priorities and ask ‘can we afford a breach?’. What do I do during an incident? Who do I involve? When do I involve the ICO?

If you’re unable to answers these questions, you need help from the experts.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Recent Cases, Real Consequences – and What to Learn

From missed emails to misplaced vehicles, here are a few real-world reminders to help you avoid unnecessary headaches.

Legal Disputes: Why traders should avoid direct contact

The urge to sort the matter out, or attempt to, can put a strain on the process and you may find yourself in a difficult position.

The etiquette of handling consumer complaints

It is always best practice to get involved while you have the chance and follow the correct process at the very beginning.

A settlement agreement may not protect you

An agreement does not need to be in writing to be binding, but it is much easier to prove the terms of an agreement if there is a documented paper trail.

Implications, assumptions, and confusion – why being clear on your actions could be key to winning

The diagnosis showed the third-party garage had failed to repair the vehicle to a satisfactory standard and this was relayed to the consumer.

Burden of proof? Get your evidence while you can!

The burden of proof reverses for issues raised between 30 days and six months of ownership.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

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.