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…