The vehicle was of satisfactory quality – Claim dismissed!

legal_updates

Although the vehicle had covered an additional 17,000 miles since purchased, the Claimant alleged the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 9 months 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 handled a county court claim with a few twists but ultimately, our client (the Defendant) won.

The Claimant purchased a vehicle to be used for private hire and the vehicle was also subject to a hire purchase agreement.

A fault developed with the vehicle around three months after the sale. Both the finance company and Defendant offered to assist with the repair which meant the Claimant was required to contribute only a third of the repair cost. The Claimant refused. 

The Claimant went on to sell the vehicle to We Buy Any Car and then issued court proceedings for the difference between the price received from We Buy Any Car and the price originally paid for the vehicle.

Although the vehicle had covered an additional 17,000 miles since purchased, the Claimant alleged the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.

The Defendant’s argument included:

  • the Claimant had issued proceedings incorrectly. As the vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement, the contract was in place between the Claimant and the finance company.
  • the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA) was not applicable as the vehicle was purchased to be used for the individual’s trade and (S2(3) of the CRA 2015 defines a consumer as “an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.”
  • the vehicle was fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality at the point of sale.
  • any fault present developed whilst in the Claimant’s possession and, therefore, no liability owed.

The judge dismissed the claim. He found that the vehicle was of satisfactory quality at the point of sale and this was demonstrated by the additional mileage incurred by the Claimant.

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.