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.

Author: Jason Williams
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 3 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.

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…

Jason Williams

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.