Trust, good-faith and what to disclose when getting paid to do work for others – an interesting case

legal updates

Sued for just short of £2000 for their losses and for the breach of trust implied in their dealings and lack of disclosure.

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.

Our client (X) sells a car to a private consumer who is not a part of the actual dispute.  It has a six month warranty.  In that time period another garage rings X and says that the turbo has blown in their customer’s car. 

X arranges a new turbo to be sent to this garage and pays them to fit it.  A few weeks later the turbo blows again.  For a second time X gets a replacement turbo and pays the same garage to fit it.  It blows again.  So they get a third turbo sent and pay for it to be fitted and would you believe – that one fails shortly after too.

X then gets car back to find out the cause.  Turns out that before the first turbo failed, the other garage re-mapped the ECU and removed it before it was returned.  At no point during the time they were getting paid to fit new turbos did they say that they had re-mapped the car.  Our client X sued for just short of £2000 for their losses and for the breach of trust implied in their dealings and lack of disclosure as to the re-map.  

The garage opposed the claim based largely on their belief that there was no contractual obligation for them to tell our client that they had re-mapped the ECU before doing the work requested, which was to fit several new turbos.

In court but just before the hearing, the Defendant’s garage offered to pay our client 60% of the claim – which they accepted and were happy with.

Would have been interesting to have found out what the judge what have concluded.  Still, I would rather see a happy client than have my curiosity satisfied…

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?

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

The customer isn’t always right…

As it was a defect he knew about, he cannot now claim it renders the vehicle not fit for purpose or not of satisfactory quality.

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.

On your Marks… Get Set… Doh!

The TSO told our member that the consumer ought not to have experienced a failure given the age and mileage of the car.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

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

Court Rules Against ‘Serial Returner’ in Distance Selling Dispute

It is clear from his evidence that his true intention was that he wanted the ability to reject the car at a time of his choosing.

Indemnities – Handle with Care!

Indemnity clauses are usually onerous by design and drafted in broad terms so dealers should not make the mistake of overlooking them.

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.